Integrating technology to foster inquiry in an elementary science methods course: an action research study of one teacher educator's initiatives in a PT3 project.

Prospective teachers and teacher educators both confront practical and philosophical issues in attempting to integrate technology into their practice. This paper describes a case study of a science teacher educator, a novice in instructional technology, who integrated technology into an elementary science methods course, with the support of a PT3 implementation project. The science teacher educator, through action research, examined her own knowledge and practice while simultaneously helping her students, pre-service teachers, develop their own practice. Qualitative analysis of classroom observations, field notes, student feedback forms, and other documents revealed themes related to technology's role in inquiry, external and internal factors affecting the faculty member's development, and pre-service teachers' development of expertise and willingness to use technology themselves. Pre-service teachers' growth and development related to technology integration parallels that of teacher educators.

INTRODUCTION

Computers and the Internet have achieved nearly total penetration in U.S. schools today (Market Data Retrieval, 2002; National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Yet teachers continue to grapple with the practical and philosophical problems posed by the adoption and implementation of technology (Berger, Lu, Belzer, & Voss, 1994; Dexter, Anderson, & Becker, 1999; Pederson & Yerrick, 2000). Part of the problem has been the lack of attention historically given to technology integration in teacher preparation; in the past decade, a number of national reports have raised concerns about the lack of emphasis on technology integration in teacher preparation programs (Moursand & Bielfeldt, 1999; National Center for Education Statistics, 2000; Office of Technology Assessment, 1995; Panel on Educational Technology, 1997). Shortcomings have included limited use of technology in teacher education courses, an emphasis on teaching about technology rather than teaching using technology, and lack of faculty modeling of appropriate ways to integrate technology into teaching and learning.

However, this picture is now beginning to change. Nationally, initiatives such as the U.S. Department of Education's Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology (PT3) program have begun to bring about changes in teacher education by encouraging teacher preparation institutions to develop teacher capacity for using technology (Brush, 2003). The PT3 program has funded grants at institutions nationwide to improve the preparation of future teachers to make use of technology in the classroom. At Purdue University, a 2000 PT3 implementation grant entitled P3T3: Purdue Program for Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology has played a significant role in helping to implement reforms in teacher education including an emphasis on technology integration and faculty modeling of technology use.

If future teachers are to learn to use technology effectively in K-12 classrooms, they must see it modeled by teacher educators. This, in turn, requires that teacher educators learn to integrate the use of technology into their own practice. The National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996), for example, call on college science education faculty to design courses in which current and future teachers can "gather and interpret data using appropriate technology" and "use scientific literature, media, and technology to broaden their knowledge" (p 61). Science teacher educators and researchers alike have taken positive and productive steps toward developing more technologically based curricula and instruction in science teacher education (Davis & Falba, 2002; Niess, 2001; Weinburg, Smith, & Smith, 1997; Zembal-Saul, Haefner, Avraamidou, Severs, & Dana, 2002). From using technology as a communication tool to incorporating software applications as a resource for scientific inquiry to constructing web-based portfolios for learners of science, science teacher educators have begun to provide meaningful ways to engage pre-service science teachers in using technology in the science classroom.

For teacher-education faculty members to integrate technology effectively into classes for future teachers, they must receive appropriate training and support (Groves & Zemel, 2000). At Purdue, the P3T3 project has provided training and support to teacher education faculty at the university and has fostered communication and collaboration among teacher educators and educational technologists to stimulate changes in teacher education. This paper reports on a case of one science teacher educator who, with the support of the P3T3 project and through collaborations with colleagues, integrated various technologies in support of an inquiry-oriented curriculum into an elementary science methods course.

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

This study drew from two particular constructs grounded in the qualitative paradigm: action research and teacher knowledge. The research methods reflect what I (the first author), the science teacher educator in the study, view as valuable knowledge and my perspective on the nature of reality. The methods I chose to employ supported an interpretivist paradigm, which portrays a world in which reality is socially constructed, complex, and ever changing (Glesne, 1999; Marshall & Grossmann, 1999).

Interpretivists believe that social realities are constructed by the participants in those social settings (Glesne, 1999). To understand the nature of constructed realities, Glesne stated that qualitative researchers "must gain access to the multiple perspectives of the participants" and "interact and talk with participants about their perceptions" (Glesne, 1999, p. 5). Maxwell (1996) suggested that qualitative researchers seek to understand how the participants make meaning of the events, situations, and actions with which they are involved and of the accounts that they give of their lives and experiences. The particular context within which the participants act and the influence of this context also play important roles (Maxwell, 1996).

I was interested not only in the physical events and student behaviors that were occurring in my methods class and within the students' own developing practices, but also in how the methods students made sense of this and how their understandings influenced their behavior. I wanted to listen first hand to their reflections about what was happening at that time, along the way, and at the end.

Action Research. Action research, which is the method that I adopted for this study, is embedded in the qualitative paradigm. For the purpose of this study, action research is defined as systematic, self-reflective inquiry aimed at constructing knowledge about one's practice with the major goals of improving and coming to a better understanding of that practice (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Stenhouse, 1975). In the context of this study, I viewed action research as a process that could result in the improvement of my own attempts at integrating instructional technology, increase my understanding of my methods students' engagement with technology, and generate new knowledge that could be shared with other science teacher educators and researchers. Joint decision making, interactive discussions, open criticism, and collective action among my methods students and me were central to my model for action research. This, in turn, empowered my students to critically examine their own formative and tentative ideas about teaching science at the elementary school level.

Teacher Knowledge. Central to this study is the work of teachers, specifically the knowledge they have and the decisions they must make in order to take action within their own practice. In this study, the teacher knowledge perspective provided one way of examining how science teachers, both pre-service and practicing, know how to teach. Shulman (1986) suggests that the base for teaching is complex, encompassing knowledge of content, pedagogy, curriculum, learners, educational contexts, and other distinguishing factors characteristic of beginning and experienced teachers. In the last decade, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) has been described as an integrated and adaptive component of teacher knowledge representing the junction at which knowledge of pedagogy, content, and students converge (Cochran, DeRuiter & King, 1993; Cochran & Jones, 1998). Capturing the development and complexity of this knowledge in action requires rich descriptive accounts of a teacher's understanding of the content, how it develops and changes, the factors that influence this development, and how teaching the content alters his/her understanding of the concepts (Loughran, Milroy, Berry, Gunston, & Mulhall, 2001). In the context of this research, my action research, also defined as a self-study, was dependent on my own knowledge and understanding of the science concepts relative to the elementary school level, my instructional attempts at integrating technology through scientific inquiry, and my students who were pre-service science teachers.

STUDY DESCRIPTION

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to examine my attempts as a first-year science teacher educator, who entered the process with relatively little experience with instructional technology but received support from a PT3 project, to integrate various applications of instructional technology into my elementary science methods course. This research addressed the following questions:

* How did the faculty development support of the PT3 project and collaboration with colleagues facilitate my integration of technology in the elementary science methods course?

* What forms of technology integration did I employ, and how did these support the elementary science methods course curriculum?

* In what ways did this integration of instructional technology facilitate pre-service science teachers' learning of science teaching practices and influence their interests in the use of technology?

Through this study, we sought to learn more about how science teacher educators, with support and collaboration, can successfully integrate instructional technology in their courses in both productive and meaningful ways such that future teachers gain new knowledge of and interest in integrating educational technology into their own classroom practice.

Study Context--P3T3 Project

The broader context of this study was Purdue's PT3 project, a 4-year initiative launched in 2000 that played a significant role in ongoing reforms of the elementary and secondary teacher education programs at the university. The P3T3 project supported the four thematic strands that form the basis of Purdue's teacher education programs--field experience, diversity, portfolio assessment, and technology. The project contributed to each of the strands through overarching goals to prepare pre-service teachers to use technology as a tool for teaching and learning and to prepare teacher education faculty to model teaching with technology for future teachers. Three complementary components were developed to meet the goals: (a) a faculty development and mentoring program; (b) the development of a web-based electronic portfolio system for all teacher education candidates; and (c) technology-enabled virtual field experiences. The study described in this paper focuses on the faculty development and mentoring component of the project and my experiences integrating technology into a science methods course for future elementary teachers.

The faculty development component of the P3T3 project focused on helping faculty members to acquire and refine technology knowledge and skills, which they could use and model for the prospective teachers in their classes. Several approaches were combined in a coordinated effort that included: (a) "start-up" workshops to initiate project participation, (b) skills development workshops, (c) Techie Talk sharing sessions, (d) faculty mini-grants, and (e) year-long mentoring and support.

Faculty members initiated project participation by taking part in a two day "start-up" workshop, which served to communicate project goals and give participants a shared experience. In part, the start-up workshops were designed to model problem-based learning processes (Torp & Sage, 1998) as faculty participants, working in small groups, used technology as part of investigations of available campus technologies and/or resources. Subsequently, participants were exposed to a variety of available campus technologies, because faculty members need to see models of what is possible in order to stimulate ideas for personal technology integration (Ertmer, 1999). As a culminating activity of the start-up workshop, each participating faculty member developed and shared concrete plans for integrating technology into at least one course that he or she would teach during the coming academic year.

To help faculty members develop expertise in the use of technologies relevant to their integration plans, various hands-on, skills-development workshops were offered. To build a community of practice, Techie Talks, which were informal "brown bag" presentations during the academic year, were developed to provide a forum for sharing perspectives and successes. During the final two years of the project, a faculty mini-grant program was begun to support faculty initiatives related to technology integration in teacher education. Finally, a critical part of the faculty development component of the project was a year-long support and mentoring program. Training and mentoring are necessary if faculty members are to be successful at integrating technology into teaching (Dusick, 1998; Groves & Zemel, 2000). The P3T3 staff reviewed faculty members' plans for technology integration, and, based on the specifics of each plan, assigned a graduate assistant with appropriate skills to an individual faculty member to serve as a liaison to the project. The graduate assistant worked with the faculty member throughout the year providing one-on-one tutoring and assistance at the faculty member's request. In addition, the P3T3 staff offered drop-in help sessions one afternoon each week throughout the academic year. This personalized support was viewed as a key strategy to help faculty members realize their visions for technology integration.

A summary of my participation and actions is included in Table 1. I attended a start-up workshop in August 2002, just prior to beginning my first year at the university. Subsequently, I participated in both skills development workshops and Techie Talk sessions, and took advantage of the drop-in help sessions provided by the project staff.

Elementary Science Methods Course

The action research study took place in an undergraduate elementary science methods course generally taken by students two semesters prior to student teaching. The methods course addressed a range of topics, all of which revolved around several key themes: how children learn science, how science is taught at the elementary level, and how children's science learning is assessed. Specific units of study included: the nature of science, issues of gender equity and diversity in elementary school science, exploration of science process skills, how children learn science, addressing of children's misconceptions in science, and teaching of science through scientific inquiry using productive questions and fair test investigations. Underpinning each of the units of study was the primary goal--that methods students should learn more about how to engage children in scientific inquiry. According to the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996), inquiry is central to science learning. It involves a process of exploring the natural world that leads to asking questions, making discoveries, and rigorously testing those discoveries in the search for new understanding (National Research Council, 1996). The significance of incorporating inquiry into the course was to emphasize to methods students the importance of encouraging children to pursue answers to significant questions (Brown & Champione, 1990) in ways similar to those used and practiced by scientists (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), thereby, mirroring as closely as possible the enterprise of doing real science (National Science Foundation, 1999). Accompanying class assignments were field-based experiences in a local elementary school where students incorporated elements of inquiry by conducting interviews with children and teaching two independent lessons using productive questions and the learning cycle, respectively.

The course met twice weekly with a 1-hour lecture/discussion session followed by a 1-hour lab. I was one of three course instructors, and generally began each class session with an abbreviated lecture followed by a series of hands-on activities, small group projects, and/or individual exercises reinforcing a particular concept or principle. Prior to my integration of instructional technology, little attention was given to the possibilities of incorporating various forms of instructional technology into the methods course. Only one application of instructional technology, the use of PowerPoint for students' presentations of class assignments, was employed. With this in mind, I paid particular attention to key entry points where applications of instructional technology could be introduced and developed for fostering inquiry-based learning of science.

Student Participants

A total of 38 methods students from two different sections of the course, one section taught in the spring 2003 (N=14) and another section taught in the fall 2003 semester (N=24), contributed to the study. The student groups combined included 33 Caucasian females, 4 Caucasian males, and 1 African-American male. By the time students enrolled in the science methods course, they had completed up to 15 credit hours in life, earth, and physical sciences, 9 credit hours in mathematics, and at least 2 credit hours in educational technology. Hence, the methods students had developed sufficient subject matter knowledge to teach science in an elementary school setting and practical knowledge for using basic productivity software and tools for application purposes.

Data Collection

Data were collected in the form of student feedback forms, classroom observations, field notes, reflective journals of both my students and me, and document review (e.g., student work and my lesson plans) (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). I constructed a form to gather feedback from students about their engagement with each IT application. The feedback form asked students to rate on a 5-point scale: clarity of instruction, difficulty with the application, interest in the application, and practicality of the application. One example of a statement on the feedback form included the following: "On the scale from 1 to 5 (1 = low and 5 = high), please rate the level of difficulty with today's application of instructional technology." In addition, the feedback form included several open-ended questions that encouraged students to share their ideas and concerns about the application and to propose ways they envisioned using the application in their own practice. Some of these questions included the following: "What was most challenging about using instructional technology in today's lesson?" "How might you integrate this application of instructional technology in your own science classroom?" and "What did you find most helpful about today's class? Please list one or two specific examples." The feedback form was administered after students' engagement with each instructional technology application.

A series of six informal classroom observations was conducted by a graduate student affiliated with the P3T3 project. The observations served as a source of data to inform my action research on how the methods students were interacting with the technology. Each observation involved a two-part process--describing what the observer had seen and interpreting what it meant (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2003). The observations were designed to be open-ended, with particular attention to noting and recording students' behaviors and interactions with the technology.

I recorded field notes based on my own classroom observations of students' engagement with each technology application. Additional documents, such as completed classroom assignments, rubrics, and my lesson plans, were collected and reviewed. Lastly, I maintained a daily journal that chronicled my attempts at developing and implementing each technology application. The methods students, in turn, recorded their personal experiences, feelings, or concerns with each application in a reflective journal. My students and I collectively shared reflections publicly with one another to provide a platform for discussions about using technology in the science classroom.

Data Analysis

Data gathered from the student feedback forms were analyzed by determining the median for each response for each course/semester. Medians were calculated for students' responses in relation to the clarity of the instruction, the difficulty with, interest in, and practicality of the application. In this study, the student feedback forms were used primarily to fuel "practical judgments and decisions about how to improve practice" (Elliott, 1991, p. 64) in the context of the elementary science methods course, involving an identifiable group of students. For this reason, the data were not statistically aggregated for outcome measures but rather evaluated for the purposes of self-validation and learner validation (McNiff, 2002).

Additional data were analyzed using grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The first step entailed open coding of the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994) including the students' responses to open-ended questions on the feedback forms, student work, and journal entries. During this phase, attention was given to identifying indicators of concepts and categories that fit the data. Categories and concepts that appeared repeatedly led to the construction of themes based on the instructor's attempts at implementing instructional technology. The viability of the construction of themes was then tested via triangulation with other relevant data sets (e.g., field notes from classroom observations and other supporting documents) (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This process entailed contrasting and comparing different accounts in one data set with that of another data set. To evaluate the plausibility of the emerging themes, I employed a process of peer debriefing whereby I consulted with staff members of the P3T3 project, including the project director (the second author). Through this process, we were able to critically examine patterns that seemed apparent. These consulting sessions allowed us to uncover emerging themes and alternative explanations for the data.

RESULTS

This study documents the integration of instructional technology in one science teacher educator's methods course. This study provides a broad view of the factors that supported this activity, including the support of the P3T3 project. In addition, this study paints a picture of what technology integration looked like when incorporated as an inquiry tool in an elementary science methods classroom. In this study, themes emerged that can be used to inform the design of teacher preparation programs and the work of the science teacher educators within them. A discussion of these themes follows.

Faculty Support Through Collaboration

Prior to developing ideas for instructional technology (IT) activities, I, the science teacher educator, attended a start-up and several skills-based workshops (see Table 1). In my reflective journal, I wrote:</p> <pre>

Today I attended one of the first technology workshops offered for new and returning faculty. One of the activities was to gather

information about any one building here on campus and then present

what we learned in a PowerPoint session to the entire group. We

chose a small library close to our building and worked together

preparing the PowerPoint. Most of the time, I watched others use the software and decided that I really need to learn how to use this. For my integration plan, I am proposing to design my own PowerPoint presentations for each lesson and that I plan to attend several brown-bag lunch sessions so I can get one-on-one instruction

(reflective journal, August 2002). </pre> <p>Once the semester began, I read about and attended several skills workshops and brown-bag lunch sessions. Following my third workshop, I wrote:</p> <pre>

So far, I have learned how to create and manage my own grade book in Excel; how to prepare a PowerPoint presentation using different

animation schemes and adding sound effects; and how to use a digital

camera and transfer my pictures to a PowerPoint presentation. I have made several PowerPoint presentations for lessons in my science

methods course and consulted with Julie [P3T3 graduate assistant]

several times. Because I am still a little apprehensive about using

PowerPoint, I asked Julie to observe me and to give me feedback. She suggested that I streamline some of my slides so that there is not as much text and to try incorporating html links, to avoid closing my presentation each time I want to access a web site. Later this week, Julie is going to show me how to include html links in my slides. I am beginning to feel more confident in how I am using some of the technology. I also feel comfortable that my students are watching me learn how to use the technology (reflective journal, October 2002). </pre> <p>After several weeks of honing my skills with productivity software, I developed enough confidence to begin learning a new technology. With the help the P3T3 project director, I read about laboratory probeware and how college science faculty use this technology to teach undergraduate students. Together, we reviewed literature from different probeware companies and decided to work with one company that provided probeware that was both grade-appropriate and challenging for elementary school children. I then applied for a P3T3 mini-grant proposing to learn how to teach my methods students how to use probeware in their own science classrooms. The grant provided enough funding for one class set of temperature sensors and accompanying software.

When the new equipment arrived, I reviewed the teacher manual, tested the sensors, and then consulted with the technology support staff about installing the software in the computer labs. Upon developing my first lesson plan using the probeware, I wrote:</p> <pre> Learning how to work the probeware has been fun. I think I have a couple of good ideas for using the sensors in my methods course. I practiced one of my lessons with the two science methods TAs and Julie and it went well. Having the sensors has inspired me to think of different ways I could use other types of sensors, such as litmus or motion sensors. Using these probes just seems like a good fit for teaching methods students how to engage in and teach scientific inquiry to young children. Jim [P3T3 project director] has encouraged me to continue using different probeware and consider applying for another mini-grant (reflective journal, November  2002). </pre> <p>After piloting my first lesson using the temperature probeware, I wrote:</p> <pre> This is the first time students used the lab sensors ... I am finding teaching this way more challenging than I expected, yet still motivating. I find myself observing carefully how the students interact with the sensors, how they follow direction, and what kinds of questions they ask. I am also noticing how nervous I get when they ask me a question about the probeware. After this lesson, I asked myself: Do I really know enough about using this technology to answer their questions? Julie observed me teach the lesson and she also helped several students connect the sensors and go through the program. She commented that my directions were clear; my modeling of how to start the program and use the temperature sensors was 'excellent'. I felt that Julie and I were co-teaching the lesson. Students were very comfortable consulting with Julie and me ... asking for clarification and seeking our help with converting

tables into charts. It is exciting to see how students are engaged

(reflective journal, December 2002). </pre> <p>Collaborating with Julie, consulting with the P3T3 project director, and attending different faculty professional development sessions allowed me to develop the knowledge, skills, and confidence to move forward in my implementation plan for integrating instructional technology in the science methods course. As my confidence increased, I began to think critically and carefully about how to develop inquiry-based activities using both productivity software and probeware.

Inquiry Through Technology Use

When designing and deciding upon the integration of each IT activity, I paid particular attention to three key factors: 1) the nature of the units of study in the methods curriculum; 2) the national standards for science as inquiry that applied to each unit (see National Research Council, 1996, p. 121-123 for Grades K-4 and p. 143-148 for Grades 5-8); and 3) the technologies that were available and appropriate for fostering inquiry-based skills. As a result, I created opportunities for the methods students to use technology in the course in a variety of ways (see Table 2). Common productivity software such as Excel and PowerPoint was integrated into the units as well as hardware including digital cameras and electronic laboratory sensors (e.g., temperature probes, heart rate monitors) that interfaced to a computer. Each application also supported at least one inquiry skill as outlined by the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996).

The following is a description of activities #2, 3, and 4. These activities best illustrated my attempts at integrating instructional technology to foster scientific inquiry.

Activity 2. Engaging in scientific inquiry.

In this activity, students worked in teams of four to design an investigation that examined a local campus-wide problem--the impact of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) on traffic. First, students discussed issues related to SUVs (e.g., cost, fuel consumption, accident rates). Next, students gathered background information about SUVs through electronic searches, interviews with local residents, civic employers, and local car dealers. Then, students engaged in class discussions about scientific concepts such as force, mass, acceleration, and momentum and used their understanding of these concepts to formulate a researchable problem and hypothesis. Students generated experimental designs and carried out their investigations. Students used digital cameras, camcorders, and other appropriate technologies (e.g., stopwatches) to gather data. Each student team gave a PowerPoint presentation that outlined its research question, prediction, design, data analysis, and explanations on what the team members observed.

Activity 3. Learning to use laboratory probes.

For this activity, students learned how to use laboratory sensors as appropriate tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data. Before using the lab sensors, students traced an outline of their hands and predicted the temperature of various areas of their hands. Students then used the temperature probes to determine the temperature of each area, while comparing their results with their predictions. To reinforce the science standard that "using technology for data collection enhances accuracy" (National Research Council, 1996, p. 76), students repeated the same task using alcohol thermometers and compared and contrasted their results. In small groups, students responded to the following questions: How do you keep your hands warm in the winter? How does the design of a mitten compare to the design of a glove? Which keeps in the most heat and why?

Activity 4. .Exploring children's science learning through productive questioning and journaling.

In this activity, students engaged in an inquiry-based activity that used productive questioning as a way of learning about batteries, bulbs, and electricity. Students worked in pairs; each pair was given one small light bulb, one battery, and one wire, and asked: How many different ways can you get the bulb to light? Using digital cameras and a science journal, students recorded their predictions, shared their ideas with peers, tested their predictions, and photographed their results. Students used digital cameras to chronicle their experiences and findings. For a final product, students gave PowerPoint presentations that profiled their digital photos and accompanying written explanations of how open and closed circuits operate using evidence from their respective inquiries.

The Role of Instructional Technology in the Elementary Science Classroom

Through ongoing formative assessment (i.e., reflections and feedback forms), the students reported improved skill development and interest in incorporating instructional technology approaches within their own prospective practice. Excerpts from students' reflective journals indicated that students were learning about new pedagogical techniques, developing conceptual understandings in science, and becoming more knowledgeable about using technology to foster scientific inquiry. The following are several excerpts from students' reflective journals:</p> <pre>

I learned a new way of introducing the concept of endothermic and

exothermic reactions, using temperature lab probes. I liked designing our own hot/cold pack and using the probes made our data

more precise rather than using regular thermometers. I think

children need to be exposed to this type of technology so they can

understand how science and technology go hand in hand in the real

world (Kristen, reflective journal, spring 2003). I found the digital cameras so helpful in trying to capture our data with connecting batteries, bulbs, and wire to produce light. I think this is a good way for students to represent and communicate their findings to their peers. It also gives them immediate feedback as well as the opportunity to reflect on what they are observing and how they are making meaning of what is or is not happening. Children should be able to communicate their findings and reflect on the problems they had along the way, and be able to document the inquiry process (Paul, reflective journal, fall 2003). I thought using the lab probes was a lot of fun. I especially liked the fact they we could make our own decisions with how to design our fair test investigation and how we wanted to record and represent our data. Using the probe software allowed us to make different tables and charts and to manipulate the data to see if we could see it from another perspective (Clint, reflective journal, fall 2003). I learned how to design an inquiry lesson where using the technology was a way to apply a concept and present our understanding of that concept. I did not understand the concepts of force, acceleration, or momentum until we went outside and conducted our SUV investigation. Using digital video camcorders and storing time tables in Excel allowed me to see first hand what was happening at a light intersection during peak traffic times. It was obvious in our data that SUVs accelerated at a slower rate than smaller cars. And depending on where the SUV was in the line of traffic depended on how many cars could get through the intersection (Christine, reflective journal, fall 2003). </pre> <p>These findings suggest that students learned more than just science content; they also how to promote scientific inquiry and self-reflection.

Data from students' feedback forms indicated increased interest in and ability to use technology (see Table 3). Students indicated relatively high interest in and usefulness of the majority of applications. Additionally, students reported relatively high interest in integrating all of the instructional technology applications within their own practice.

Additional data included students' responses to open-ended questions on the feedback forms, such as "How might you integrate this application of instructional technology in your own science classroom?" (see Table 4). The examples of activities suggested by students not only supported deliberate attempts to integrate instructional technology in the elementary science classroom but also aligned with the tenets for scientific inquiry as recommended by the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996).

DISCUSSION

This study examined how I, a beginning science teacher educator and a novice in the use of instructional technology, engaged in action research on the integration of various applications of instructional technology into an elementary science methods course. It presents a picture of how I first developed basic proficiency with instructional technology and then used the acquired knowledge and skills to create inquiry-based classroom activities for my pre-service teachers. The pre-service teachers, in turn, were stimulated by the activities to envision the use of instructional technology in support of science teaching and learning in their own classrooms.

The faculty development component of the P3T3 project played a significant role in this process. First, the project's workshops allowed me to develop a basic level of expertise with several instructional technologies including PowerPoint, Excel, digital cameras, and probeware. This new knowledge made me more comfortable with the technology, confident in my own abilities, and stimulated to consider applications of these technologies in my own teaching. Second, the P3T3 provided me with the financial support through mini-grants to purchase new equipment (e.g., temperature probes, cardio sensors, desktop computers), and it gave me the flexibility and creativity to generate innovative ways to engage students in inquiry using technology.

Along with access to additional equipment housed within the department, this made the development and implementation of technology in the course both feasible and manageable. In addition, the support of both faculty and graduate students affiliated with the P3T3 project allowed me to try out my ideas with help and guidance. The support provided by the P3T3 project was able to overcome what Ertmer (1999) described as first-order barriers to technology integration.

In addition, support from the P3T3 project fostered productive and meaningful collaborations throughout the course of this study. I collaborated with three different individuals/groups: 1) the P3T3 project director to evaluate different instructional technology applications, generate new ideas for teaching pre-service science teachers how to use technology, and gain technical support; 2) the P3T3 project graduate assistant to gather feedback on my instruction using various technologies and team-teach technology-centered lessons in the elementary science methods course; and 3) my methods students to devise new ways to integrate instructional technology to foster inquiry in the elementary science classroom.

These collaborations helped to shape my own beliefs, interest, and commitment to improving not only my own teaching but improving my students' understanding of teaching. I was determined to go beyond technology as an "add on" (Niess, 2001), "communication medium" (Weinburg, Smith, & Smith, 1997), and "resource" (Davis & Falba, 2002) for my students. My intention was to infuse it in the course such that it would play a significant role in helping students engage in inquiry (Lederman & Niess, 2000), develop higher order thinking skills, and enhance their ways of learning science and learning how to teach science (Davis & Falba, 2002). My willingness to reflect on and change my own practice to integrate instructional technology was essential to overcome second-order barriers (Ertmer, 1999), those beliefs and attitudes that often hamper technology integration efforts even when access to technology is not an issue.

Because of these efforts, an array of instructional technology applications, including the use of productivity software and probeware, was integrated into the elementary science methods course. These supported inquiry by allowing students to design investigations, gather and analyze data, and communicate the results. This is consistent with the aims of the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996).

Pre-service teachers' responses on feedback forms and reflective journal entries indicated that they acquired knowledge of and interest in integrating instructional technology in their own classroom practice. They generally found the instructional technologies employed within the methods course to be interesting, useful, and relatively easy to use. They not only envisioned themselves using these technologies in their own classrooms, but they were able to suggest specific applications of the technologies to the teaching of science. Of course, the experiences in this one class do not guarantee that these pre-service teachers will successfully utilize instructional technology in their own science teaching practice. However, experiences such as these allow pre-service teachers to develop the vision and beliefs that will ultimately guide their practice (Albion & Ertmer, 2002).

CONCLUSION

This study provides one example of the integration of instructional technology into an elementary science teacher education course. The results suggest that instructional technology has the potential to play a significant role as a teaching tool that enables pre-service science teachers to design, plan, and conduct scientific investigations. In addition, it provides a framework for prospective science teachers to begin thinking about the actions they can take in response to the growing need for preparing young children to be both scientifically and technologically literate.

We have learned that for teachers, whether university level teacher educators or pre-service elementary teachers, to make instructional technology an integral part of their practice, they must develop an awareness of its applications, be able to use it in a supportive environment, and have the opportunity to reflect on its role in their own practice. This process is fostered by a collaborative environment in which individuals can construct collective knowledge about their practice. Pre-service teachers' development of skills in using technology and their coming to understand its importance in the service of content instruction in the classroom parallels the process for university faculty who struggle to integrate instructional technology in their own practice. Simply put, as pre-service teachers make decisions about their own teaching, experience it, and reflect upon it in the context of their preparation program, they are better able to construct educational understandings that are similar to those espoused by the teacher educators.

References

Albion, P. R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2002). Beyond the foundations: The role of vision and belief in teachers' preparation for integration of technology. Tech Trends, 46(5), 34-38.

Berger, C. F., Lu, C. R., Belzer, S. J., & Voss, B. E. (1994). Research on the uses of technology in science education. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 466-490). New York: Mac-millan.

Brown, A. L., & Champione, J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills, 21, 108-126.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researchers, 18, 32-42.

Brush, T. (2003). Preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology (PT3) [Special issue]. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1).

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London: Falmer Press.

Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263-272.

Cochran, K. & Jones, L. (1998). The subject matter knowledge of pre-service teachers. In K. Tobin & B. Frazer (Eds.), International handbook of science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Davis, K., & Falba, C. (2002). Integrating technology in elementary preservice teacher education: Orchestrating scientific inquiry in meaningful ways. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 303-329.

Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers' views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 221-238.

Dusick, D.M. (1998). What social cognitive factors influence members' use of computers for teaching? A literature review. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 3(2), 123-137.

Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2003). Supervision and instructional leadership: A Developmental approach (6th ed.). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57-65.

Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (2000). Technology for technology's sake or for the improvement of teaching and learning? School Science & Mathematics, 100 (7), 345-348.

Loughran, J., Milroy, P., Berry, A., Gunstone, R., & Mulhall, P. (2001). Documenting science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge through PaPeR's. Research in Science Education, 31, 289-307.

Market Data Retrieval (2002). Technology in education 2002. Shelton, CT: Market Data Retrieval.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McNiff, J. (2002). Action research: Principles and practice. (2nd ed.). London: Routhledge.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Moursand, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? Research study by the International Society for Technology in Education, commissioned by the Milken Exchange on Educational Technology. Milken Exchange on Educational Technology. Retrieved December 12, 2004 from, http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME154.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000, September). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology (Report No. NCES 2000-102). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003, October). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2002 (Report No. NCES 2004-011). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation. (1999). Inquiry: Thoughts, views, and strategies for the K-5 classroom. Foundations: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education, 2(NSF 99-148). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education.

Niess, M. L. (2001). A model for integrating technology in preservice science and mathematics content-specific teacher preparation. School Science & Mathematics, 101(2), 102-109.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1995, April). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (Report No. OTA-EHR-616). Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.

Panel on Educational Technology. (1997, March). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington, DC: President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Pederson, J. E., & Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Technology in science teacher education: Survey of current uses and desired knowledge among science educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(2), 131-153.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Resarcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA. Sage Publications.

Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Weinburgh, M., Smith, L, & Smith, K. (1997). Preparing preservice teachers to use technology in teaching math and science. Techtrends, 42(5), 43-45.

Zembal-Saul, C., Haefner, L., Avraamidou, M., & Dana, T. (2002). Integrating technology in elementary preservice teacher education: Orchestrating scientific inquiry in meaningful ways. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(4), 303-329.

Acknowledgement

The contents of this paper were developed with support from grant #P342A000075 from the U.S. Department of Education. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and the reader should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

BRENDA CAPOBIANCO AND JAMES LEHMAN

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Purdue University

USA

Table 1 Science Teacher Educator's Participation in Professional
Development Activities

                          Science teacher educator's actions in response
Types of project support  to support

Start-up workshop         * Developed skills using various educational
                            technologies including PowerPoint and Excel.
                          * Reviewed existing course syllabus for
                            possible IT integration.
                          * Wrote an initial technology integration
                            plan.
Skills workshops          * Developed skills in using digital cameras
                            and digital video cameras. Learned web page
                            design using Dreamweaver.
Techie Talks              * Attended sessions on PowerPoint and Excel to
                            extend knowledge.
                          * Designed a series of interactive PowerPoint
                            presentations for weekly course sessions.
                          * Developed a curricular unit involving the
                            use of Excel.
                          * Presented a Techie Talk session on
                            integrating technology in elementary science
                            methods course.
Consultation/mentoring    * Consulted with project staff and colleagues
                            about ideas for technology integration.
                          * Revised technology integration plan to
                            employ technology for inquiry-based
                            activities in elementary science methods
                            course.
                          * P3T3 graduate staff assisted during
                            technology implementation activities and
                            provided feedback.
Mini-grant #1             * Purchased lab sensors (temperature and
                            cardio) for use in elementary science
                            methods course.
                          * Piloted use of sensors and other technology
                            integration activities in elementary science
                            methods course.
Mini-grant #2             * Disseminated findings from study of
                            technology integration activities in 2004
                            (AETS, SITE, & AERA).

Table 2 Overview of Course Instructional Technology (IT) Applications

Unit of study        Task                  IT application   Product

1. Introduction to   Determine the         Excel            PowerPoint
process skills       distribution of       PowerPoint       presentation
                     color within a bag
                     of candy
2. Engaging in       Design and conduct    Excel Digital    PowerPoint
scientific inquiry   an investigation      cameras &        presentation
                     that determines the   camcorders
                     effect of sport       PowerPoint
                     utility vehicles
                     (SUV) on traffic
3. Learning to use   Examine the           Lab probes       Mini-report
laboratory probes    temperature of our                     including
                     hands                                  data table
4. Exploring         Record responses to   Digital cameras  PowerPoint
children's science   productive questions  PowerPoint       presentation
learning through     while engaging in an                   with digital
productive           inquiry-based                          photos
questioning and      activity
journaling
5. Planning and      Determine the effect  Lab probes       Written
conducting           of temperature on     Excel            report
scientific           making ice cream
investigations
through
performance-based
assessment
6. Designing a fair  Design and conduct a  Lab probes       Written
test investigation   fair test                              report
                     investigation using
                     lab probes (Cold
                     Pack Lab)

Table 3 Overall Median Scores) of Students' Responses to Statements From
Feedback Forms

                                    Process
                                    skills    Scientific
                                    (M & M    inquiry     Extremity
Statement                   Term    candies)  (SUV)       Remedy

How interesting did you     Spring  4         4           4
find today's use of IT?     Fall    3         4           3
Rate the clarity in my      Spring  4         4           4
instruction with giving     Fall    4         4           4
directions on using the
technology
How useful was today's      Spring  4         4           4
lesson in using IT?         Fall    3         4           4
Rate the level of           Spring  1.5       1           1.5
difficulty with today's     Fall    1         1           2
application of IT
How likely do you envision  Spring  5         5           4
yourself integrating this   Fall    4         5           4
application in your own
classroom teaching?

                                                Scientific   Fair test
                                                investi-     investi-
                                    Digital     gations      gations
Statement                   Term    journaling  (Ice cream)  (Cold Pack)

How interesting did you     Spring  4           5            3
find today's use of IT?     Fall    4           4            4
Rate the clarity in my      Spring  4.5         4            4
instruction with giving     Fall    4           4            4
directions on using the
technology
How useful was today's      Spring  4           4            4
lesson in using IT?         Fall    4           4            4
Rate the level of           Spring  2           2            2
difficulty with today's     Fall    1           2            3
application of IT
How likely do you envision  Spring  4           4            4
yourself integrating this   Fall    4           4            4
application in your own
classroom teaching?

Note: This table shows the overall median scores (on a scale of 1[least]
to 5[most]) of students' responses to statements from feedback forms for
each instructional technology application administered spring 2003
semester (N=14) and fall semester 2003 (N=24).

Table 4 Examples of Students' Ideas for Integrating Each IT Application
in Their Own Science Classroom.

                 Examples of students' ideas for integration IT from
IT Application   fall 2003 (N=24)

Excel            * Classify and sort different objects (i.e. rocks,
                   buttons, shells, or leaves)
                 * Record data (i.e., change in temperature, length, or
                   speed over time)
                 * Make and use simple picture charts/graphs to tell
                   about observations
PowerPoint       * Communicate results from any investigation
                 * Present research gathered via web-based searches on
                   topics such as famous scientists and inventors
                 * Discuss how tools, such as computers, have affected
                   the way we live
Digital cameras  * Create a digital journal on how leaves change color,
                   how living things grow and change over time, or how
                   water can be a liquid or a solid
                 * Design a moon chart using digital pictures
                 * Observe plants and animals, describing how they are
                   alike and how they are different in the way they look
                   and in the things they do
Probeware        * Measure change in temperature of water when it
                   freezes, melts, or boils
                 * Monitor heart rate recovery times after exercise
                   using cardio probes
                 * Explore the concept that water is more dense as a
                   liquid
                 * Classify household solutions an acid, base, or
                   neutral using pH sensors