Learning to teach with technology model: Implementation in secondary science teacher education.

Achieving scientific and technological literacy for all students is a goal of recent science education reform efforts (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996). Teacher educators play a critical role in preparing new teachers to meet this goal. This article presents a model based on conceptual change learning theory, for learning to teach science with technology. This model was used to revise our secondary science methods courses. While integrating technology in this project, we focused on three types of technology tools: (a) probeware, (b) computer simulations, and (c) an online communication tool, CourseInfo. The implementation of one full cycle of the model using LoGal computer simulations is described. The following challenges were encountered while integrating technology into the secondary science methods courses: (a) the ongoing development of the teaching team's pedagogical content knowledge for using technology to support scientific inquiry (PCK-Tech for SI), (b) students' perceptions of an overemphasis on technology and the resistance of some students to use technology, and (c) time issues. Questions that have emerged for teacher educators and an outline of new directions for the secondary science teacher education program are offered.

Technology offers teachers and students enhanced opportunities to engage in scientific inquiry, as well as a multitude of ways to represent scientific concepts. Achieving scientific and technological literacy for all students is a goal of recent science education reform efforts (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996). In the last decade, the number of computers available in American schools has increased by approximately 15% per year. In 1998, schools reported having one computer for every six students, whereas a 1992 survey reported one computer for every 14 students (Anderson & Ronnkvial, 1998). How are science teachers using computers to support students' learning? In a 1992 survey of a random, stratified sample of 179 U.S. secondary science department chairs, Lehman (1994) reported that 47% of the science teachers did not use microcomputers at all, 40% used them only occasionally, and only 13% of science teachers used computers in one or more lessons a week. In 81% of the responding schools, students used computers in science classes twice a month or less. When asked why teachers did not use computers, the department chairs listed limited computer availability, lack of training and the personality of the teacher as the three most frequently cited barriers. In this same survey, department chairs were asked to identify the frequency of computer inservice sessions at their school. In the three years preceding the survey, 45% of the schools had offered no computer inservice and another 45% had offered an average of one session or less, with only 10% of the schools offering an average of one or more session per year. Looking at teachers in general, Fabry and Higgs (1997) confirmed Lehman's findings. They identified the following barriers to the effective use of technology in schools: (a) teachers' attitudes and resistance to change; (b) lack of training and time; (c) inadequate access to computers in classrooms; and (d) the high cost of technology.

To achieve the goal of scientific and technological literacy for all, the preparation of new teachers is a critical component of this multi-faceted issue. Willis and Mehlinger (1996) summarized the literature on information technology and teacher education in the following way, "Most preservice teachers know very little about effective use of technology in education and leaders believe there is a pressing need to increase substantially the amount and quality of instruction teachers receive about technology" (p. 978).

The United States Office of Technology Assessment (U.S. Congress, 1995), in assessing preservice teacher education, found that technology was not a central component of teacher preparation programs in most colleges of education. A summary of the key findings states:

Most technology instruction in colleges of education is teaching about technology as a separate subject, not teaching with technology across the curriculum. ... Seldom are students asked to create lessons using technologies or practice teaching with technological tools. (p. 165)

This article describes a project that supports the teaching and learning of science with technology tools in the secondary science education program at The Pennsylvania State University. The technology tools were selected for their potential to enhance science teaching and learning, with particular emphasis on supporting children's scientific inquiry. In its first semester, the Learning to Teach with Technology Project focused on the following tools: probeware, online computer simulations, and an online communication tool, CourseInfo.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Conceptual Change Model

A conceptual change model of learning informed the design of the Learning to Teach with Technology Project (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982; Hewson, 1981; Hewson, Beeth, & Thorley, 1998). Hewson et al. (1998) stated:

The central concepts of the [conceptual change] model are status and conceptual ecology. The status that an idea has for the person holding it is an indication of the degree to which he or she knows and accepts it: status is determined by its intelligibility, plausibility and fruitfulness to that person. The idea of a conceptual ecology deals with all the knowledge that a person holds, recognizes that it consists of different kinds, focuses attention on the interactions within this knowledge base, and identifies the role that these interactions play in defining niches that support some ideas (raise their status) and discourage others (reduce their status.) Learning something, then, means that the learner has raised its status within the context of his or her conceptual ecology. (pp. 199-200)

As teacher educators, our goal for the Learning to Teach with Technology Project was to raise the status of students' conceptions of using technology to support scientific inquiry while lowering the status of their conceptions of "teacher as lecturer." The conceptual change model identified four conditions that need to be met before a conception can be accommodated into a person's conceptual ecology: (a) there must be dissatisfaction with existing conceptions; (b) a new conception must be intelligible; (c) a new conception must appear initially plausible; and (d) a new conception should suggest the possibility of a fruitful research program (Posner et al., 1982, p. 214).

Hewson and Hewson (1988) offered the following simplified definitions of the conditions above, "Learners use their existing knowledge to determine if a new conception is intelligible (knowing what it means), plausible (believing it to be true), and fruitful (finding it useful)" (p. 605).

In the Learning to Teach with Technology Project, the condition of intelligibility was defined as the students' ability to understand the role a specific technology tool can have in supporting scientific inquiry. In initial class discussions, the majority of the students revealed that they had not used probeware and computer simulations in their past science courses. Only a few students had used probeware in undergraduate science courses, and their experience was limited to single laboratory activities. So for many of the students, the first step was to become familiar with probes and computer simulations, and to begin to develop an understanding of the capabilities of these tools.

In the Learning to Teach with Technology Project, the condition of plausibility was defined as the students' ability to articulate the possibilities of using the tool in supporting children's scientific inquiry. Typically, students generate possible uses for a specific tool within the context of their own science discipline. The definition of plausibility has been expanded to include the condition that the student is able to successfully use a specific technology tool. To elaborate, a student might find the conception of using probeware intelligible (e.g., the student knows what probes are). But the student may not find the use of probes in their own teaching as plausible if the individual is not confident in his or her ability to use the tool.

The condition of fruitfulness is met when the student finds the tool to be integral to the process of supporting children's scientific inquiry. In this project, the condition of fruitfulness was viewed as the students' ability to successfully use a specific technology tool to support other students' engagement in scientific inquiry.

The conceptual change literature often identified dissatisfaction as a fourth condition that needed to be met before a conception can be accommodated. This project sought to help the students become dissatisfied with traditional lecturing by incorporating powerful examples of technology in facilitating students' conceptual understanding and engagement in scientific inquiry.

Technology Tools

During the first year of the Learning to Teach with Technology Project, the focus was on three types of tools: (a) probeware, (b) computer simuladons, and (c) an online communication tool, CourseInfo. The tools were selected based on their potential to support children's scientific inquiry, extensive documentation of the tool in the literature, and availability in local school districts.

Probeware. In the literature, probeware is often referred to as "micro-computer based laboratories" (MBLs), which Nakhleh (1994) defined as "software which uses an electronic probe to collect information about a physical system and convert that information to a graphical system in approximately real time" (p. 368). The MBL literature reveals benefits to using probeware over traditional methods of data collection and analysis. MBLs provide an immediate, real-time link between a concrete experience and its symbolic representation. Real time graphing is more interactive, providing immediate feedback. The transformed data is more meaningful to the students. As a result, students are more aware of shortcomings in their experiments and are able to modify their design (Schecker, 1998; Mokros & Tinker, 1987; Linn, Layman, & Nachmias, 1987). MBLs enhance the development of students' graph making and interpreting skills (Mokros & Tinker, 1987; Settlage, 1995; Stuessy & Rowland, 1989; Friedler & McFarlane, 1997; McFarl ane, Friedler, Warwick & Chaplain, 1995). MBLs provide students with multiple modalities for learning (Mokros & Tinker, 1987), while extending the experimental possibilities and providing students with authentic scientific experiences (Mokros & Tinker, 1987; Settlage, 1995; Schecker, 1998).

Friedler and McFarlane (1997) compared the use of MBLs to traditional methods of data collection and graphing in the regular science curriculum. In this study, the classroom teachers integrated MBLs into the existing science curriculum. Researchers noted that the teachers tended to interact with students in the same way in the experimental and control groups. The teachers did not exploit the advantages of MBLs to study the graphs as a representation of the relationship between variables. Nakhleh (1994) reviewed the MBL literature and emphasized that across the studies, the following two points were evident: "(a) MBL is motivating and satisfying for students at a variety of educational levels, and (b) the effectiveness of MBL is greatly enhanced by appropriate instruction and a thoughtful design of the curriculum" (p. 379).

Simulations. Computer simulations were also integrated into the secondary science methods courses. Simulations are the most common computer application used by secondary science teachers (Lehman, 1994). The students enrolled in the first methods course were surveyed to assess their experience as learners using computer simulations. Of the 23 students completing the survey, only seven students reported having used a computer simulation in their high school science classes, and these students tended to report a single experience with computer simulations. Fourteen of the 23 students enrolled in the course reported using computer simulations in their college science courses.

When do teachers choose to use computer simulations in their teaching? "Simulations are desirable when: performing the experiments would be impossible, the experiment would be too dangerous, or the timeframe to perform experiments is too long. A simulation allows control of one parameter at a time, that might not be possible to do in the real world" (Steed, 1992, p. 47).

Stratford (1997) reviewed the research on computer simulations and models in precollege classrooms and differentiated between a model and a simulation by defining a model as "a scientific construct designed to imitate a real-world phenomenon" and a simulation is "a computer program based on a model" (p. 4). In the Learning to Teach with Technology Project, the focus was on having students use computer simulations in contrast to creating simulations or models. In reviewing the literature on running simulations, Stratford found that computer simulations offer the following benefits to precollege science students:

Overall, the literature reviewed here [13 studies from 1987-1996] indicates that simulations are useful in confronting students with their misconceptions in order to promote conceptual change. Investigations into the extent to which simulations can affect students' acquisition of conceptual knowledge appear to be promising. Finally the literature indicates that simulations can be effectively integrated into appropriate theory-building and inquiry activities, although large-scale integration into school systems has proved to be difficult. (p. 16)

In this project, the choice was made to have the students work with LoGal computer simulations for several reasons. LoGal offers an extensive library of simulations in the secondary school science disciplines of chemistry, physics, and biology, with the earth science simulations currently being developed. The tools and format of the model windows are fairly consistent across the disciplines, making it easier for the instructor to support students' work with the simulations. La Gal is intended for use with high school students; thus the simulations highlight software appropriate for our students' future use as secondary science teachers. La Gal is available at a low cost and is now web-based for easy access (www.logal.com). LoGal offers a range of teacher support services, including teacher activity guides, searching capabilities for curriculum matching, alignment with state and national science standards, as well as an online tutorial for teachers. An assessment component is built into the simulations, allow ing students to submit electronic portfolios of their work. (For a description of the La Gal environment, see Richards, Barowy, & Levin, 1992.) After working with the La Gal simulations, the students were asked to review other web-based computer simulations in their discipline. As the costly and time-consuming process of building the software library was begun, it was found that the web-based La Gal simulations were a good starting point for integrating computer simulations into the secondary science methods courses.

CourseInfo. "Teachers need to provide environments which support students inquiring, collaborating, and communicating. Such environments can help students to generate scientific understandings. Technical tools can help facilitate this effort" (Spitulnik, Stratford, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1998, p. 363). To create a collaborative environment for students, an online communication tool, CourseInfo, was used. This tool is available free of charge at www.blackboard.com and has an array of features. The following components were selected: discussion groups, group home pages, individual home pages, course calendar and e-mail messaging. Students used Caurseinfo to access course announcements, the syllabus, and major assignments. Caurselnfo was used to extend conversations beyond the normal class sessions and for community building within discipline-specific groups. Students responded to course readings using online discussion groups and used group pages to collaborate on a variety of projects.

LEARNING TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY MODEL

A five-phase Learning to Teach with Technology Model was conceptualized that informed our curriculum revision of the secondary science methods courses.

In the first phase of the model, students are viewed as science learners and engage in scientific inquiry using the specified technology tool. Many of the students had no prior experience using the selected technology tools in their undergraduate science courses. This initial phase, referred to as the "Learner" phase, is designed to help the students find the conception of teaching with technology intelligible. After this initial engagement with the tool, students are asked to reflect on their experience. These discussions occurred in class as well in discipline-specific groups through CourseInfo. This reflection process serves multiple purposes. Hewson (1996) stated, "Teaching for conceptual change is explicitly metacognitive" (p. 136), and the reflection time encourages students to make their own conceptions explicit. During class discussions, course instructors asked the students if their ideas about teaching with technology had undergone any changes. In conceptual change teaching, the status of ideas must be discussed and negotiated (Hewson et al., 1998). The reiterative reflection process also allows the students to begin to generate possible uses of the tool and gives the course instructor the opportunity to assess whether the conception of teaching with a particular technology tool is intelligible to each student.

In the second phase of the model, the students focus explicitly on the technology tool. The students engage in additional scientific investigations using the technology tool, but in this stage of the model, some of the instructor support is removed. In this "Technician" phase, the students gain experience setting up the technology tool. With the probeware, the students were asked to connect the probes, interface boxes, and computers. The students were also given access to any existing support documentation, such as teachers' manuals for the technology tool. While using the technology tool to engage in scientific inquiry, the focus shifts to the tool, including possible troubleshooting scenarios. This phase of the model is designed to help meet the condition of plausibility for the students' conceptions of using technology to support scientific inquiry in their own future classrooms. In the reflection component, the focus is on the information/skills students feel they may be lacking before the conception of t eaching with technology is plausible. Then the instructors try to respond to any concern or questions of the students.

During the third phase of the model, "Curriculum Planner," the students examine existing technology-enhanced science curricula and/or modify existing exemplary curricula to integrate the use of the technology tool. As the students examine and discuss technology-enhanced curricula, the instructors are given an opportunity to assess each student's views of the plausibility of using a particular technology tool. In the pilot project, PAS-CO probeware was used, and the curriculum material provided in the PAS-CO Workshop library was utilized.

In the fourth phase of the model, the students move from the role of science learner to that of science teacher. In a mentored, small group setting, the students use the technology tool to support other students' scientific inquiry. This phase of the model is referred to as "Intern Teacher," and it is designed to make the conception of teaching with technology both plausible and fruitful to the student. By gaining some experience teaching with the technology tool, the goal is to help students see the conception of teaching with technology as fruitful. In the first methods course, the students engage in the fourth phase of the model in a peer teaching situation. The course instructor is present to help with any troubleshooting situations that may arise. The students are asked to write extensive reflections on their experience teaching with technology. Class discussions followed the teaching experience, asking the students to be explicit about their conceptions of teaching with technology. During this phase, th e discussion focuses on the students' conceptions of teaching with technology and any changes in the status of their conceptions. Again, the reflective component allows the instructor a window into understanding the students' thinking about the conditions of plausibility and fruitfulness.

The final phase of the model, "Teacher," occurs in a school setting as the students plan and teach technology-enhanced lessons for supporting children's scientific inquiry. The students write lesson plans, teach using the technology tool, and write reflective papers on their experiences. This phase of the model is designed to help the students build confidence in teaching with a specific technology tool. This phase of the model and its reflective component enables the instructor to assess whether the students see the use of the technology tool as fruitful in supporting scientific inquiry.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LEARNING TO TEACH WITH TECHNOLOGY MODEL

Overview of the Secondary Science Teacher Education Program

At The Pennsylvania State University, secondary science education students progress through a two-semester sequence of science methods courses, Teaching Secondary Science I & II. With the second semester methods course, there is an accompanying practicum experience at local middle schools and high schools. The students enroll in additional education coursework, but the Learning to Teach with Technology Project was limited to the courses listed above. The student population in the secondary science methods courses consists primarily of undergraduates pursing a secondary teaching certificate in biology, chemistry, physics or earth sciences. A few graduate students pursing teaching certificates are also enrolled in the courses. The first semester methods course is organized around three themes: the nature of science, the nature of science learning and the nature of science teaching. The nature of science, scientific inquiry and the National Science Education Standards are themes in the second methods course. Th e practicum is an integral component of the experience in the second methods course. The students are required to teach two technology-enhanced science lessons at their practicum school. The students typically enroll in the second methods course and practicum in the semester prior to their student teaching experience. The first four phases of the model were integrated into the first methods course. In the second methods course and practicum, the students experienced all five phases of the model, as this was the first semester for the Learning to Teach with Technology Project. In subsequent semesters, the students will become familiar with the technology tools in the first course. This will allow the instructors to shift the focus in the second methods course, concentrating on the last three phases of the model emphasizes planning and teaching with technology.

The Model in Action

In revising the secondary science methods courses, it was not a goal to create technology courses, rather the goal was to integrate and model the use of technology for supporting children's scientific inquiry. The initial peer teaching assignment in the first methods course illustrates how the Learning to Teach with Technology Project informed the curricular decisions. Computer simulations were integrated into the first peer teaching assignment, with the students selecting a LoGal simulation in their discipline. Following the model, the students first engaged in the simulations as science learners. The students were asked to work in pairs at a computer to foster discourse around the scientific content and modeling present in the simulation. Through CourseInfo discussions, the students reflected on their experience as science learners using computer simulations. By using the simulation themselves as learners, the instructors wished to make the conception of teaching with simulations intelligible.

In the second phase of the model, Technician, the course instructors focused on the technology tool, the LoGal simulations. The course instructors reviewed the various tools and windows present in the LoGal simulations and addressed questions and concerns that the students voiced about teaching and learning with simulations. Students were encouraged to access LoGal online from their home computers, giving them additional opportunities to explore the simulations. In the third phase of the model, Curriculum Planner, the students selected a portion of the computer simulation to use in the peer teaching assignment. The students were given some guidance in selecting a portion of a simulation suitable for a 20-minute peer teaching lesson. The instructors wanted the students to use the more powerful, scientific inquiry-oriented portions of the software that would be difficult to duplicate using a traditional lecture presentation. Within a discipline, the students were encouraged to plan their peer teaching lessons a round the same topic, enabling the students to have in-depth small group discussions about the content and models in their selected simulation. The course instructors were able to gauge the plausibility of the students' conceptions of teaching with simulations by monitoring small group discussions during class and on CourseInfo.

To prepare for the fourth phase of the model, Intern Teachers, the instructors discussed general information on writing lesson plans and objectives. Concept mapping was introduced as a means of assessment. Within their discipline-specific groups, the students were asked to draw concept maps of the scientific content represented in their simulation. Again, by having the students within the same discipline teach the same topic, students were able to engage in meaningful discourse about the relationships between concepts as they negotiated the creation of group concept maps.

For the peer teaching assignment, each student was assigned to teach one other student in the class. Students in each pair represented different disciplines; for example, an earth science student might be paired with a biology student. During preparation for the peer teaching, the student pairs interviewed each other to assess their learner's prior knowledge. Concept maps were constructed to represent the learner's conceptual understanding of the selected science topic. PIViT, a concept-mapping, project planning tool, was introduced and the students created their learner's initial concept map using PIViT(Brade, Krajcik, Soloway, Blumenfeld, & Marx, 1995).

In the fourth phase of the model, the students taught a short science lesson using the computer simulations. Working in the same pairs as before, the students traded roles, experiencing computer simulations both as a learner and as a teacher. After the peer teaching, the learners were asked to review and make any revisions to their initial concept maps. The teachers included an analysis of their learner's concept maps as part of their peer teaching written project. The peer teaching assignment was designed to help the students consider the conception of teaching with simulations as fruitful. The students were asked to reflect on their teaching experience in class discussions and as part of their written project for this assignment. In the written project, the students were asked to address the following questions.

From a teacher's perspective:

1. When is it appropriate to use a computer simulation?

2. What are the advantages and limitations of using computer simulations?

3. What aspects of the simulation were most helpful to your student?

4. Reflect on any classroom management concerns that you might have.

From a learner's perspective:

1. To what extent did the simulation help you learn science content and engage in scientific inquiry outside of your discipline area?

2. What did you like/dislike about using a simulation as a tool for en gaging in science learning?

3. What aspects of the simulation were unclear to you?

Through class discussions and responses to the previous questions, the students were able to negotiate and make explicit their conceptions of teaching with computer simulations. The model is designed to help meet the conditions of dissatisfaction, intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness necessary for conceptual change learning.

In the first methods course, the students engaged in the first four steps of the Learning to Teach with Technology Model. A similar process was used for integrating probeware into the methods courses. In the second methods course, students have the opportunity to engage in the full cycle of the model, using technology to support children's scientific inquiry during their practicum.

CHALLENGES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The goal was for secondary science education students to learn to teach with technology. The instructors sought to model the use of technology to support children's scientific inquiry as well as support the students' use of technology for the same purposes. Several challenges were encountered during the project. The challenges can be grouped in the following way: (a) the ongoing development of the teaching team's pedagogical content knowledge for using technology to support scientific inquiry (PCK-Tech for SI), (b) students' perceptions of an overemphasis on technology and the resistance of some students to use technology, and (c) time issues.

Through funds from a grant, graduate students and faculty were supported during the summer to redesign the syllabi in the two methods courses and to become familiar with the selected technology tools. Without this critical support, the project could not have been implemented on this scale. Members of the teaching team brought different experiences to the project. Some individuals had used probes prior to the project but many of the graduate students had not. Only one individual had experience teaching with the LoGal simulations. CourseInfo was a new software package for the entire team. It was known that it was essential for the teaching team to be familiar with each technology tool, but during this Learning to Teach with Technology Project, instructors began to think about their knowledge in a different way. The instructors have started to consider the concept of pedagogical content knowledge for using technology to support scientific inquiry. Shulman's (1986) original term, pedagogical content knowledge (P CK), was borrowed and defined as 'subject matter knowledge for teaching" and the instructors are elaborating on this construct, by focusing on PCK for using technology to support scientific inquiry (PCK-Tech for SI). One component of PCK-Tech for SI involves knowing powerful examples of using technology to support children's scientific inquiry. For example, the teaching team initially introduced probes to the students in the investigation, The Fruit Battery from the PASCO Workshop library. In this investigation, students insert a copper wire and a galvanized zinc coated nail (both connected to a voltage sensor) into various types of fruits. The students generate questions and hypotheses relating to the resulting voltage readings on the computer screen. This example was found to be easily duplicated using low-tech voltmeters and the students were not convinced of the need to learn how to use probeware. As the work continues, the teaching team is collectively building a repertoire of examples allowing the selec tion of more powerful examples of technology use to support scientific inquiry, while discarding less powerful examples. As teacher educators, it was found to be a time-consuming process to build a repertoire of technology examples across disciplines, across grade levels, and across technology tools.

The goal was to use technology to support children's scientific inquiry. Contrary to the students' perceptions, the goal was not to emphasize the technology itself. The first methods course began by introducing the students to the range of technology tools being used in the course. The students entered the course with preconceptions about the nature and content of their first science education course. The majority of the students expected this course to be similar to their science content courses and wanted to be told how to teach science. The students had little or no prior experiences with the technology tools and many placed a limited value on teaching science through scientific inquiry. Some students expressed concern with the course emphasis on technology and felt they were missing more important topics related to learning to teach science.

Students expressed varying degrees of resistance to teaching with technology. Students entering the course with strong technology skills were very positive about the course and the use of technology. Students with strong techno-phobic tendencies remained resistant to the conception of teaching with technology. Using funds from the grant, the science education group purchased iMac computers for use in the methods courses. In the first course, only two of the 23 students had any prior experience using MacIntosh computers. When students encountered difficulties using technology, they frequently blamed their difficulty on the computer platform. Some students did not have home computers and found it necessary to use the science education computer lab outside of class meeting times. It is anticipated that student concern about computer access will decrease over time, as the university is requiring in-coming students to own personal computers. It is also necessary to continue to be sensitive to students' preferred computer platforms, selecting technology tools that are cross-platform, while still recognizing the need for future teachers to be proficient in multiple computer platforms.

Time was another challenge encountered in the project. It did require additional class time to integrate each phase of the model into the secondary science methods courses. The model needed to be repeated for each of the technology tools. The course instructors made decisions relating to the technology integration as the semester progressed. The instructor in the first methods course focused more heavily on the use of simulations, while the instructor of the second methods course focused on probeware. The issue of time emphasizes the need for the technology to be integrated into existing curricular activities to avoid having the students view technology as an addon component to the curriculum. Spitulnik and Krajcik (1998) described their experiences integrating technology into a secondary science methods course. They also identified the time necessary for introducing the tools and the seamless integration of technology as challenges. To meet these challenges, Spitulnik and Krajcik considered adding a one cred it required lab time to their methods course.

One way that the time challenge is being addressed is to create a third required science education course. This new course, currently being designed, will become the first course in the sequence of methods courses. In this new course, the focus will be on the first two phases of the model: (a) engaging in scientific inquiry as learners and (b) learning the technology tools. It is envisioned that the course will consist of interdisciplinary science modules wherein students engage in scientific inquiry, using appropriate technology tools. New technology tools and plans to expand beyond the current technology tool kit are being explored. After this course is implemented, much less time will be needed for students to learn the technology tools in the subsequent methods courses.

As the Learning to Teach with Technology Model is infused across three semesters of science methods courses, the authors research interest will continue to focus on the Learning to Teach with Technology Model, conceptual change teaching, and the development of PCK-Tech for SI. The following questions are being explored: What are students' conceptions of using technology to support scientific inquiry when they enter and when they graduate from the secondary science education program? What are the most efficient ways of assessing the status of each student's conception of using technology to support scientific inquiry? What aspects of a student's conceptual ecology interact with their conceptions of teaching with technology? What are the most powerful experiences using technology tools that help meet the conditions of intelligibility, plausibility, fruitfulness, and dissatisfaction? How can we support practicing teachers' technology use for students to be placed in technology-rich practica and student teaching settings? As the nature and sources of the development of PCK-Tech for SI is explored, in what ways does the model inform us and in what ways does it limit our thinking?

Learning to Teach with Technology Model

Phase One: Learner

Engage in scientific inquiry as a learner, using the technology tool

Phase Two: Technician

Learn the technology tool.

Phase Three: Curriculum Planner

Focus on technology-enhanced curriculum.

Phase Four: Intern Teacher

Support peers' scientific inquiry, using technology tool.

Phase Five: Teacher

Support children's scientific inquiry, using technology tool.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, R.E., & Ronnkvial, A. (1998). The presence of computers in American schools (Report 2). Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998, a National Survey of Schools and Teachers [Online]. Available: http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC

Brade, K., Krajcik, J.S., Soloway, E., Blumenfeld, P., & Marx, R. (1995). Project integration visualization tool [Computer software]. University of Michigan.

Fabry, D.L., & Higgs, J.R. (1997). Barriers to the effective use of technology in education: Current status. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 385-395.

Friedler, Y., & McFarlane, A.E. (1997). Data logging with portable computers: A study of the impact on graphing skills in secondary pupils. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(4), 527-550.

Hewson, P.W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(4), 383-396.

Hewson, P.W., & Hewson, M.G. A'B. (1988). An appropriate conception of teaching science: a view from studies of science learning. Science Education, 72(5), 597-614.

Hewson, P.W. (1996). Teaching for conceptual change. In R. Duschl (Series Ed.) & D.F. Treagust, R. Duit & B.J. Fraser (Vol. Eds.), Ways of knowing in science series: Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 131-140). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hewson, P.W., Beeth, M.E., & Thorley, N.R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199-218). Great Britain: Kluwer.

Lehman, J.R. (1994). Secondary science teachers' use of microcomputers during instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 94(8), 4 15-420.

Linn, M.C., Layman, J.W., & Nachmias, R. (1987). Cognitive consequences of microcomputer-based laboratories: Graphing skills development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 244-253.

McFarlane, A.E., Friedler, Y., Warwick, P. & Chaplain, R. (1995). Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 14(4), 46 1-480.

Mokros, J.R., & Tinker, R.F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369-383.

Nakhleh, M.B. (1994). A review of microcomputer-based labs: How have they affected science learning? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 13(4), 368-81.

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

Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.

Richards, J., Barowy, W., & Levin, D. (1992). Computer simulations in the science classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1(1), 67-79.

Schecker, H. (1998). Integration of experimenting and modeling by advanced educational technology: Examples from nuclear physics. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 383-398). Great Britain: Kluwer.

Settlage, J. (1995). Children's conceptions of light in the context of a technology-based curriculum. Science Education, 79(5), 535-553.

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

Spitulnik, M.W., & Krajcik, 1. (1998). Technological tools to support inquiry in a science methods course. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 17(1), 63-74.

Spitulnik, M.W., Stratford, S.J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998) In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 363-381). Great Britain: Kluwer.

Steed, M. (1992). Stella, a simulation construction kit: Cognitive process and educational implications. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 11(1), 39-52.

Stratford, S.J. (1997). A review of computer-based model research in procollege science classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(l), 2-23.

Stuessy, C.L., & Rowland, P.M. (1989). Advantages of micro-based labs: Electronic data acquisition, computerized graphing, or both? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 8(3), 18-21.

US Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connections (GPO #052-003-01409-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Willis, J.W., & Mehlinger, H.D. (1996). Information technology and teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.). Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.), pp. 978-1029. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Author Notes

An earlier version of this article was presented at the Northeast Regional Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science on October 14, 1999 in Syracuse, New York. The project was funded through a Link to Learn Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Education.