Statement of the problem and theoretical framework

FACILITATING THE DEVEL= OPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION UNDERSTANDING AMONG PRESERVICE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE TEACHERS THROUGH COLLABORATIVE REFLECTION

Tom J. McConn= ell, Michigan State University

Abstract

Techno= logy has the potential to change the practice of students and teachers in the science classroom. Despite a growing emphasis on technology’s role in inquiry-based science teaching, stud= ents are not using technology in ways that promote inquiry. Teachers are increasingly comforta= ble using technology, but often fail to integrate technology as a tool for student-centered inquiry. The goal of the study was to examine the effects= of collaborative reflection about technology use in the science classroom on patterns in the way preservice elementary teachers conceptualize the role of technology in science education. Collaborative reflection uses a social constructivist approach to developing teacher knowledge. =

The participants included fourteen preservice elementary education teachers working as teaching assistants in a biology content course using a variety of technologies. The influence of collaborative reflection on the understanding these students have constructed about technology helps inform technology education programs to meet the needs of prospective and practicing teachers.

The findings of this study suggest that preservi= ce teachers often think of technology primarily as an expository teaching tool. After engaging in refle= ction about technology, participants began to include a wider range of applicatio= ns and learning goals in their concept of technology integration in the science classroom.

Statement of the problem and theoretical framework=

Technology= has been described as a tool with the potential to change the practice of stude= nts and teachers in the science classroom (Sutphin, 1987). Despite these expectations and a g= rowing emphasis on the role of technology in inquiry (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996), students are not using technology in ways that promote inquiry. Teachers are increasingly comforta= ble using technology, but often fail to fully integrate technology as a tool for student-centered inquiry.   Instead, teachers frequently use technology as an electronic substit= ute for texts and workbooks, (Edelson, 1998; Pedersen & Yerrick, 2000; Zhao, Puge, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). <= /span>
       &= nbsp;    Attempts to increase the use of technology in science classrooms have included technology skills as part of the pre-service teacher preparation program. Efforts have addressed technology = skills among pre-service teachers through stand-alone courses (Cimikowski & Cook, 1996; Luan, Jalil, Ayub, Bakar, & Hong, 200= 3; Yildirim, 2000) or as part of science content or methods courses (Baldwin &= amp; Sheppard, 2003; Gabel & Boone, 1993; Kumar, Bedell, & Seed, 1999).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Many of these programs fail to add= ress technology integration skill, focusing on teaching about technology rather than teaching with technology (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000; Panel on Educational Technology, 1997). This failure to emphasize integrati= on of technology is a contributing factor in the lack of technology utilizatio= n in classrooms (Carlson & Gooden, 1999).        &= nbsp;    This study examined results from a phenomenographic research project on the deve= lopment of technology integration skills among preservice elementary science teachers. The goal of the stu= dy was to examine the effects of collaborative reflection about technology use in = the science classroom on patterns in the way pre-service elementary teachers conceptualize and perceive the role of technology in science education. The rationale for the use of collaborative reflection was drawn from a social constructivist theoretical framework (Vygotsky, 1978).
       &= nbsp;    The participants in this study were a group of fourteen pre-service elementary education teachers working as teaching assistants in a biology content cour= se that uses a variety of technologies. Examining the influence of collaborative reflection on the understan= ding these students have constructed about technology helps inform the revision = of technology education programs to meet the needs of prospective and practici= ng teachers.

Research Questions

This study= was a comparative case study (Merriam, 1988) that examined the differences between three groups of preservice teachers. One group of participants was engaged in individual reflection on th= eir use of technology and their educational experience with technology. Two other groups of participants e= ngaged in reflection about their use of technology as a collaborative group, shari= ng ideas and insights about their practice to co-construct an understanding of technology integration (Osguthorpe, 1999).= The groups were enrolled in the study for sixteen weeks during the spring 2005 semester at a large midwestern university.

The questi= ons that guided the research included the following:

· What experiences do undergraduate elementary science teaching assistants have with technology integration in a classroom setting?

· What are the initial conceptions of undergraduate elementary science teaching assistants about the integration = of technology in the science classroom?

· Does collaborative reflection influence how preservice elementary teachers use instructional technology? If so, how?

Design of the study

To answer = the research questions, a variety of qualitative data were collected. The data included transcripts of semi-structured interviews (Patton, 2002) and collaborative reflection meetings; reflective electronic journal entries; a technology integration survey; classroom observations; and a review of documents pertinent to technology used in the course.

Context of the Study

The popula= tion examined in this study was a group of four= teen undergraduate elementary education students working as teaching assistants (TAs) in a biology content course for elementary teachers at a large midwes= tern university. A larger sample w= as desired for the study, but the small number of undergraduate TAs who fit wi= thin the targeted population limited the sample recruited. All fourteen undergraduate T= As for the course volunteered to participate in the study.

The teaching assistants <= /span>had completed at least one year of a teacher education program, and had complet= ed the course they taught. All o= f the participants had also completed at least one course in educational technology. Six of the fourte= en participants had completed a course in elementary science methods, while fi= ve others were enrolled in the course at the time of the study. Four participants had not yet take= n the science methods course. The population was a purposeful sample chosen because it represented a unique population of preservice teachers who share an experience of teaching scien= ce and implementing instructional technology in a science course. At the same time, participants in = this study were selected to represent typical cases of preservice elementary teachers (Patton, 2002). The courses and field experiences that had shaped the participants’ views= of technology and science education were much the same as other elementary education students at the university.

Four of the teaching assistants had participated in a pilot of the study the previous semester. In order to underst= and how participants’ reflections change over an extended time, these fou= r TAs were asked to continue in the study as a reflective group, called the Experienced Collaborators (EC) group. The other ten participants were grouped into matched pairs based on experience as TAs, their year in the teacher education program, and their l= evel of comfort with technology as revealed in an initial technology survey. Each participant was also assigned= a pseudonym that was used to protect confidentiality. Members of each matched pair were = then randomly assigned to either the New Collaborative (NC) or Individual Reflections (IR) group in order to make the different groups as comparable = as possible (Patton, 2002). Memb= ers of the IR group only reflected on their use of technology as individual TAs. Members of the NC and EC groups participated in collaborative reflection about their use of technology in t= he science classroom. Comparison= of the development of understandings about the role of technology in the scien= ce classroom revealed differences between collaborative and individual reflections.

Data Collection

A technolo= gy integration knowledge assessment (TIKA) survey was developed by adapting the MyTarget2 assessment instrument published by the Corporation for Educational Technology (2004). After piloting the survey, the decision was made to use the survey results to gui= de the development of questions and discussion topics for interviews, group discussions, and electronic journal entries. Because of the small sample size a= nd the nature of the survey, TIKA responses were not compared statistically, and no inferences about changes in participants’ ideas were drawn from the results. <= /span>

A series o= f six individual interviews with each participant was conducted during the semester. The first interview= was scheduled in the first week of the course, before the first technology-based lesson of the semester. This interview recorded participants’ initial ideas about technology integration, the role of the technology in the science classroom, and their= own individual experiences with technology as a student in both science and education courses. Each subse= quent interview took place within a week of lessons in which teaching assistants = or students used technology during a class activity. These interviews addressed the participants’ perceptions about the role of technology in the classro= om, and the impact of technology on their students and their own teaching pract= ice.

Within a w= eek of the individual interviews, members of the two collaborative reflection grou= ps (EC and NC) also participated in group meetings. During these meetings, the group reflected on how the technology was use in the activities they had taught, = and discussed their ideas about how technology influences learning and teaching= in the science classroom. &nb= sp;

The resear= cher also recorded classroom observations during the technology-based lessons. Notes and observations were organi= zed in a split-column observation form. The columns distinguished between observations and the researcher’s inferences, comments and contextual notes. Events recorded in these observati= ons served as a reference point for interviews, group discussions and electronic journal entries. The observat= ions were also transcribed and analyzed for any patterns in the ways TAs and stu= dents interacted with technology during the lessons.

At three t= imes during the semester, participants were also asked to write entries in an electronic reflective journal. The electronic journals provided an opportunity to expand and explore ideas that arose during group discussions and interviews when time did not permit more conversation about specific events or ideas. The journal entries were elicited through email, and responses were emailed back to the researcher and record= ed for later analysis.<= /p>

Data Analysis

Individual interviews and group meetings were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. Transcribed responses from intervi= ews, meetings, and electronic journal entries were then coded using open coding techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) and analyzed for any recurrent patt= erns in the responses (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As codes were developed in = the initial reading of data and condensed into categories, the coding scheme was refined and tested through member checks to ensure that participants’ responses were accurately reflected in the analysis.

As pattern= s in the data emerged, conceptually ordered and time ordered matrices were used to t= est the strength of themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Individual cases describing key informants from each group were developed to provide contextualized illustr= ations of the reflection process and changes in participants’ understanding = of technology integration.

To ensure trustworthiness of interpretations of the data, the researcher employed peer debriefing and triangulation. Peer debriefing involved sharing samples of transcripts and discussing interpretations with two doctoral students in science education. The results of the debriefing show= ed an eighty-two percent agreement in coding of data. Revisions to the coding scheme wer= e made based on the debriefing session to increase agreement on some codes. Triangulation involved comparison = of primary data sources with document reviews and observations.

Findings

The result= s of this study are drawn primarily from participants’ responses recorded during interviews and collaborative reflection sessions. Electronic journal responses and classroom observations provided supporting evidence for interviews and group discussions. The responses collected in this study reveal three relevant patterns= in preservice teachers’ experiences with educational technology in the science classroom. The participants’ experiences included similar sources and educational ro= les for educational technology. T= he participants also exhibited the same initial views about how technology sho= uld be integrated into science curriculum.&nbs= p; The data also reveal that collaborative reflection is more effective than individual reflection at broadening the range of conceptions about the role of technology in the teaching of science.

Preservice Teachers̵= 7; Experiences with Technology

Findings o= f this study revealed a consistent pattern in participants’ experiences with technology and initial concepts of technology integration. The common experiences of the participants in this study included completion of an edu= cational technology course, personal use of technology at home and in courses, and observation of technology use during field experiences. The experiences the participants described involved technology used for teacher and student productivity or = the delivery of information to students. PowerPoint, word processing and drill and practice software dominated the list of technology applications encountered by the teaching assistants.= Inquiry-based applications of tech= nology were rarely represented in the descriptions of the experiences participants cited. The few responses that featured inquiry-based uses of technology were limited to the use of temperature probes to collect data. Only two of the participants menti= oned the probes.

One except= ion to this pattern was the mention of webquests by ten of the fourteen participants. Webquests are d= efined as inquiry-oriented activities in which students find most or all of the information they need on the Internet (Dodge, 1995). The mention of webquests as a comm= on experience suggests that participants were exposed to technology applicatio= ns that foster student inquiry. However, when participants were asked to describe the webquests they= had seen or used, it became apparent that they held a different operational def= inition of webquests. The activities = they recalled involved students operating the controls of self-contained tutoria= ls on a computer, either in PowerPoint or web-based formats. The “webquests” they described were technology-based drill and practice programs that give information to students as an electronic substitute for lecture. This definition was consistent for= all ten participants who talked about webquests.

Figure 1 s= hows a graphical representation of the range of technology examples cited by parti= cipants as teaching tools in the science classroom. The webquests described above are = coded under the student activity (“Stu active”) category rather than “inquiry.” Other categories include teacher presentations (“Tchr pres”), teacher productivity tools (“Tchr product”) including grade and attenda= nce programs, student productivity tools (“Stu product”) such as wo= rd processing and presentation tools, technology skills (“Tech skillR= 21;) practice like typing programs, and the use of technology to address multiple learning styles (“Varied styles”).

Figure 1.

Preservice teachers’ initial conceptions of the purposes of instructional technology.

All of the participants had taken an educational technology class that focused on teacher-centered technology skills. All of the participants also shared the opinion that the course addressed skills that they already possessed. Some had taken additional courses = in specific applications of technology. The informants had seen technology used only as a lecture presentati= on tool or student drill and practice during field experiences in local schools. They also had not participated in discussions of why or how technology should be used during = any methods courses. The only technology experiences in the teacher preparation program reported by participants reinforced uses of technology for the teacher rather than student-centered activities that support the development of inquiry skills among learners.

Initial Conceptions of Technology Integration

Participant responses described examples of educational technology for the science classroom primarily as tools for giving information to students. Participants were also asked to de= scribe their conception of technology integration in the science classroom. A second important pattern that em= erged from the data suggests that the technology education experiences of pre-ser= vice teachers have not led to a content-specific concept of technology integrati= on into science lessons. The participants in this study gave very consistent d= efinitions of the term “technology integration.” Nearly eighty percent of the respo= nses gave a generalized description that included adding technology to existing lesson, or using technology as a learning tool. The other twenty percent related a= view that integration of technology involves addressing multiple learning styles= or multiple subject areas in a single activity. The definitions did not elaborate = on the types of tasks for which technology might be a tool. The participants’ conception= s of technology integration bear a close resemblance to Smith-D’ArezzoR= 17;s (2002) definition of technology integration as the incorporation of technol= ogy into existing activities.

Chelsea (EC): I would say it is takin= g your curriculum and trying to enhance it using technology. (4th interview, 9-7-05)

&nbs= p;

Lorraine (EC): I just think if you took a lesson = that originally wasn’t set up to have any technology, and you integrated i= t, it means you bring it in so that you think it will enhance the studentsR= 17; learning. (4th interview, 9-12-05)

&nbs= p;

Hanna (IR): In my mind, that’= s just while you’re doing your basic lesson plan or whatever, you have lesso= ns, or just little bits that you bring in.&nbs= p; (1st interview, 9-8-05)

&nbs= p;

Andrea (N= C): Just bringing technology into your lessons. And not just bringing it into the lessons to bring it into the lessons, but making it so that it’s meaningful and actually helps the students and the teachers so that it has a point to the students, and it helps them learn something. (1st interview, 9-15-05)

&nbs= p;

The partic= ipants seem to reflect a commonly accepted description of technology integration (Linn, 1998; Smith-D’Arezzo, 2002) when they spoke of revising “= ;a lesson that originally wasn’t set up to have any technology” (<= st1:State w:st=3D"on">Lorraine, 4^=
th interview, 9-12-05). But just= as with their descriptions of why they integrate technology, they do not appea= r to have considered the particular ways in which integration of technology affe= cts learning. Such general descri= ptions may be a reflection of having heard the term used in courses without discus= sion of why technology is used or “integrated” in the classroom.

It is impo= rtant to note that the uses of technology the teaching assistants described during t= heir initial interviews matched very closely the types of technology they had encountered as students. The participants had seen technology in the context of teacher-produced presentation of information or as drill and practice software for students = in middle school, high school and university courses. In the educational technology cour= se, the activities they completed featured teacher-centered use of technology.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> During field experiences, th= ey had seen teachers using technology to display notes. The same uses of technology that t= he participants had encountered through most of their educational experience a= re reflected in their initial understanding of technology integration in scien= ce classrooms.

Impact of Collaborative Reflection
&= nbsp; After providing information about their initial ideas and experiences with educational technology, the teaching assistants led a biology class in a variety of technology-based activities.&nb= sp; The technology used for classroom activities during the semester included PowerPoint, laser video discs and overhead projectors for presenti= ng information, videos shown during class, two different inquiry-based computer simulations and the use of electronic probes, microscopes and video microsc= opy cameras to observe and collect data in teacher- and student-led investigati= ons. Following each activity, the participants were asked to reflect on the role= of technology in the lesson, and the impact of technology on student learning.

Reflection= s on the types of technology used early in the semester were similar for all three groups. Typical descriptions = of technology included opinions about the effectiveness of technology at helpi= ng students get information. The emphasis on transmission of concepts is apparent in descriptions of the eff= ects of both PowerPoint presentations and simulations.

PowerPoint= slides were used early in the semester for displaying notes for students to record. Members of all three = groups reflected on the effectiveness of PowerPoint as a tool for teaching.

Lola (IR)= : I think it helps for some people to see it, but then other times I think they= ’re just hurrying to write it down. I think they’re hurrying so much that like then when we try to ask them questions about what they just heard or read, they have no idea. (2^nd interview, 10-6-05= )

&nbs= p;

Meredith (EC): I like them. I think it’s easier for the student to take notes off of them. I think it’s easier to= kind of go into more detail than when you’re just talking. (2^nd interview, 10-3-05= )

&nbs= p;

Lorraine (EC): I= think when you use the overhead and you have transparencies, and when you use PowerPoint, it makes it easier across all divisions to relay the same information. It’s just a better way of organizing things sometimes. (2^nd interview, 4-6-05)=

Even when describing a computer-based simulation, participants viewed the technology = as a different method of transmitting content to students. The simulation allowed groups of students to manipulate variables in an pond ecosystem to observe the effect= s of each variable on three populations. Despite student engagement in several inquiry process skills (Harlen, 2001), participants describe the technology as a different way to “present” or for students to “get” information.

Lorraine (EC): I= think the simulations in theory are a very good idea. You know, you’re presenting information to them in a different way.&nb= sp; (2^nd interview, 4-6-05)

&nbs= p;

Alex (NC): Well, the simulation, since that was student oriented, they were essentially responsible for their own learning. If they just hit buttons page by page, = and wrote in answers, or the numbers, they aren’t really going to know, whereas if they read through everything, then they’d be accountable f= or that information. Then after the lab once you go over these questions then we’ll pull in all of this and hopefully you get the concepts. (2^=
nd interview, 10-6-05)

Like earli= er comments about the PowerPoint presentations, these comments used language that impli= es transmission of information: “presenting information to them,” “get the concepts,” and “find out answers.” These terms suggest that the conce= pts are contained in the computer program, and the goal is for students to get = the ideas from the simulation. The technology appears to shift the control of the program to students, but the mode of learning is still the same.

Madison (= IR): You know if they’re the one that’s actually controlling the mou= se, it gives them a different view instead of just us lecturing or giving a PowerPoint and for them copying notes.&nbs= p; I think the simulation has more of the purpose for them to find out answers on their own, instead of us just giving it to them. (2^nd interview, 9-30-05= )

Madison mentions students “contro= lling the mouse” to run the program, but there is no reference to learning through manipulation of variables, collection of data, and drawing conclusi= ons from the results. Madison’s remarks seem to point t= o the simulation as a student-controlled tutorial for getting information. The language and ideas included in= the reflections of the other thirteen participants from all three groups sugges= ted even more clearly a conception of technology as a tool for giving informati= on, and not for student construction of knowledge.

For partic= ipants who reflected on practice individually, the view of technology as an exposi= tory teaching tool remained stable throughout the study. For members of the collaborative reflection (EC & NC) groups, the concept of technology integration chan= ged over time. Comments about tea= ching strategies led to discussions about using technology to foster inquiry. The first mention of inquiry= and the recognition of technology’s role in inquiry learning appeared in = the third meeting of each group. = The following excerpt from the EC group’s discussion of inquiry illustrat= es the shift in emphasis from information transmission to a more constructivist view of learning.

= ;

Lorraine: But I still think that when you= 217;re looking at science, there’s still a major use for it (technology) in a different way that you can’t use in other subjects.

Meredith:= Yeah, in a different way. No= t just a word processor or taking tests.

Lorraine: Yeah. And in my earth science class last= week, they gave us all these different scenarios. They gave us all these tools and s= aid, “You can choose whatever problem you want from it, and take data on whatever you want, and just come up with some sort of problem and get it answered.” So projects = like that. And in other subjects, = you use technology for presenting information and things like drill and practic= e. Which are all major uses, but I st= ill think that there’s that whole inquiry and exploratory thing in science that sets it apart from other subjects.

Facilitator(F): Can you think of other= ways to use technology for an inquiry approach to learning?

Meredith:= It depends on what you’re do= ing and what grade you’re doing. But just having them get online on the internet to find out, dependi= ng on what it is that you’re doing to find out information on there.

Chelsea: OK.

Lorraine: I think using technology could hel= p you to form better graphs and things like that. It’s easy to put things into= Excel and have them make a graph for you. And it’s easy to see relationships between things. That’s something you can do&= #8230; graphing. Graphing is somethi= ng probably all inquiry based projects you could probably use some sort of graphing to compare your results.

Elle: Do we even DO any inquiry learning= in this class?

F:&nb= sp; Good question. That= 217;s what I want to get your opinions on.

Chelsea: I think the ecosystems are.

Lorraine: You have to form your own hypothesis. You test it howev= er you want. Some things aren’= t as simple as “let’s stick a thermometer in there and tell me.̶= 1; So I think that is, because you collect data and then you write this report= and graph it and you come up with your hypotheses on your own.

Meredith:= Yeah.

Chelsea: Right= 230; but that would be inquiry based?

F:&nb= sp; Well, what are you grading them on?

Meredith & Elle: The process.

Meredith:= Because like we say, it doesn̵= 7;t matter if your hypothesis WAS supported or not, you’re not going to g= et zero points because it wasn’t supported. That’s not the point!

Chelsea: Yeah, it’s not a right or wr= ong answer. It’s how did yo= u get this answer?

Elle: In [biology], for ecosystems we us= ed pH checkers, thermometer, rulers,

Meredith:= Ecosystems data sheets…. (3^rd EC Group mee= ting, 4-26-05)

= ;

In the ear= ly part of the semester, these same activities were viewed as “just getting d= ata, but not really learning anything” (Chelsea, 2^nd interview, 2-10-05). It is also important to consider the exposure these participants have had to inquiry science. All f= our members of the group had completed an elementary science methods course that emphasizes inquiry skills. Ho= wever, until the conversation cited above, none of the group members had described technology as important or useful in conducting inquiry.

A similar = conversation also took place in the NC group, but the language used to describe inquiry = was different. Like the EC group,= the NC group first began discussing inquiry in the third group meeting. An important difference between th= e two groups is the language used to describe the concept of inquiry. Only two of the NC group members h= ad been exposed to the language of inquiry learning through the science methods course, which they were enrolled in at the time of the study.

Alex: There’s a lot more questioni= ng and analysis in science than in English.

Paige: And practical experience. I’m going to play the devil’s advocate here and say that in any subject, = you can do hands on, and you can do questioning, and can analyze.

Alex: I agree, but I feel with science you’re more likely to walk into a science classroom and see, hopefull= y, groups.

Lana: Maybe that’s just the proble= m with our teaching methods these days.

Paige: And in science, I think it’s easier to do the hands on.

Lana: Yeah, that’s what I mean. That’s what I’m trying= to say. But that doesn’t m= ean that’s the way it has to be!

Emma: No,= but I’m saying as of right now. And then you think of sciences and they’re generally in lab ro= oms.

Andre: It’s questioning more with science, I think.

Lana & Paige: Exploration.

Andrea: Because we want them to learn how = to make their hypotheses and test them, so...

Andrea: It could be done in any other subj= ect, BUT…

F:&nb= sp; But it sounds like you’re saying that that’s more natural for science?

Emma: Yeah.

Andrea: Mmm hmm… more natural.

Lana: Inquiry based. (3^rd NC Group meeting, 10-6-05)

= ;

Both group= s seem to have changed their conceptions of the role of technology in science teaching. From the third disc= ussion meetings through the remainder of the study, participants in the EC and NC groups included mention of inquiry process skills in their responses about technology they used in their classrooms.&= nbsp; The use of technology as an expository tool continued to emerge in t= heir responses, but the number of technology roles discussed by these participan= ts increased following the third discussion meeting.

During the= study, members of the individual reflections (IR) group continued to focus their reflections on the expository role of educational technology. Two members of the IR group mentio= ned either inquiry processes or the word inquiry in electronic journal entries.

= ;

Madison (= IR): While they are doing the photosynthesis simulation, students are learning a= lot of process skills. They are observing the graphs and numbers when the simulation is running and are recording their observations. They are = then inferring when they are asked questions about those numbers/graphs by interpreting or explaining the observations. Before they even look at= a factor of photosynthesis, they usually must predict what will happen. (electronic journal entry, 10-24-05)

&nbs= p;

Sally (IR= ): The technology allows them to do inquiry learning and appeal to a broader r= ange of diverse learners. I think technology is one of the easiest ways to do inquiry learning, because inquiry learning has the students kind of going o= ff and doing it by themselves. (electronic journal entry, 10-26-05)

= ;

Both Sally= and Madison had completed the same methods courses as the EC group members. A similar change of concepts about= technology’s role in science might be expected, but neither Sally nor Madison described = any subsequent activities in terms of inquiry or process skills.

Table 1 is= a summary of the patterns, reflections and changes in technology integration ideas for the three groups of participants over the course of the semester. The difference betw= een individual and group reflections suggests that critical reflection about technology use with a group of critical friends (Sagor, 1992) can lead to t= he construction of new understandings or connections between technology integration knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge that may not occur = when reflecting on practice in isolation from colleagues.

Table 2

Summary table of changes in preservice teachers’ ideas about = technology integration.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Initial Ideas &n= bsp; Ref= lections About &n= bsp; = ; Change in Ideas

Group About Technology &nb= sp; Technology Use &nbs= p; About Technology

&= nbsp; &nbs= p;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Technology as = ; Initially discussed tech = ; Ideas became more

EC = tool for tutorials, = ; for transmission of ideas; &nb= sp; focused on student

&= nbsp; presentations, and &nbs= p; Started to discuss student &= nbsp; engagement with

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; teacher use &nbs= p; learning in third group &nbs= p; tools that develop

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; group meeting = &nb= sp; inquiry skills

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Technology as = ; Initially discussed tech = ; Ideas became more

NC = tool for tutorials, = ; for transmission of ideas; &nb= sp; focused on student

&= nbsp; presentations, and &nbs= p; Started to discuss student &= nbsp; engagement with

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; teacher use &nbs= p; learning in third group &nbs= p; tools that develop

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; group meeting = &nb= sp; inquiry skills

&nb= sp; = Technology as = ; Discussed impact of &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

IR &= nbsp; tool for tutorials, = ; tech on transmission &nbs= p; Ideas became more

&= nbsp; presentations, and &nbs= p; of ideas; Shift from &n= bsp; foc= used on allowing

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; teacher use &nbs= p; teacher-cen= tered to = ; students to obtain info

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; student-cen= tered learning = ; by using technology

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

Conclusions and Discussion

The goal o= f the study was to examine the impact of collaborative reflection on the teaching assistants’ understanding of technology in the science classroom. In order to identify changes in th= eir ideas that might result from any of the reflections, the initial conception= s of technology integration in science and the educational influences were assessed. The participants= 217; ideas about the role of technology at the end of the semester were compared= to their initial ideas, and data were collected to gain insight into the facto= rs that contributed to the construction of any new conceptions during the study. The following sections describe three conclusions I have drawn through my interpretation and analy= sis of the data.

Preservice Teachers Understanding of Instructional Technology

Preservice elementary teachers generally view instructional technology and technology integration in the science classroom primarily as a tool for presenting or delivering information. The p= attern of initial conceptions of instructional technology is consistent across all three groups of participants. All the participants described technology used to give information to students either through lecture presentations, videos, or computerized tutorials and other student-operated programs. Pedersen and Yerrick (2000) describe a pat= tern of teachers using technology as an electronic extension of chalkboards and workbooks, falling short of the vision of technology as a driving force in moving science education to a more inquiry-based venture (Mehlinger, 1996; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon & Byers, 2002).&nb= sp; If technology is viewed as an important tool to facilitate student inquiry, the focus of activities should be to engage students in asking questions, conducting investigations, collecting and interpreting data, and discussing inferences based on findings (Brown & Edelson, 1998; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 2000).&nb= sp;

Even thoug= h the population ecology and photosynthesis simulations used in the biology course were designed to facilitate inquiry in these ways, the participants initial= ly described the simulations as a method for transmitting concepts to the stud= ent. The teaching assistants view the difference between the presentation of not= es and the simulations as a question of who controlled the pace of information delivery, either the student or the instructor. This view is likely to be an important influence in shaping their future use of educational technology (Edelson, Gordin, & Pea, 1999; Ertmer, 2005).

This findi= ng is useful when we consider a pattern of new teachers not utilizing technology = to promote inquiry (Pedersen & Yerrick, 2000). One reason cited for this lack of technology use is that teachers have reported a perception that using technology does not fit within their own personal philosophy of teaching (Dexter, Anderson, & Becker, 1999).&nb= sp; This perception seems to be a factor in the technology integration understanding of some of the participants in this study. Paige (NC group) and Karen (IR gro= up) both expressed a strong preference for experiential, hands-on learning for their students, yet neither cited even a single example of technology that helps facilitate this type of learning.&nb= sp; I would posit that for these students, a lack of comfort in teaching through inquiry cannot account for Paige or Karen’s views of technolo= gy, but that the absence of the perception that technology is helpful in conduc= ting inquiry could influence the ways in which technology will be used in their future science teaching. (Dexter, Anderson, & Becker, 1999; Ertmer, 200= 5).

Influence of Examples of Educational Technology

Preservice teachers’ ideas about technology integration in the classroom are sha= ped by the way they have seen technology used during their experiences as stude= nts in the classroom. The finding= s of this study suggest that preservice teachers’ ideas about the purpose = of technology in the science classroom reflected the formal and practical teac= her knowledge to which they have been exposed.= Formal teacher knowledge (Fenstermacher, 1994; Zeichner & Liston= , 1996) about technology was presented to the participants during the educational technology course that focused on applications of technology used by teachers. The practical knowl= edge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1985; E= lbaz, 1983; Fenstermacher, 1994) was gained through the role models they encounte= red at the university level, in their elementary, middle and high school experiences, and through field experiences during the teacher education program. The adage that ̶= 0;we teach how we were taught” seems to manifest itself in the way preserv= ice teachers conceptualized the use of technology in the science classroom.

Participan= ts’ focus on teacher-centered technologies seems largely a product of the atten= tion they and their instructors had given to learning how to be a teacher. In the process of learning how to = be a teacher, students are constantly engaged in practicing the activities of teachers: writing lesson plan= s, aligning lessons with standards, creating assessments, and preparing for th= eir duties in the classroom as teachers. Their instructors assign tasks to learn and practice these skills, observations of teachers’ behavior through field experiences, and readings that describe, among other things, what teachers should do. It is only natural that preservice= teachers who are so accustomed to thinking and talking about their own actions would focus their reflections on teacher-centered technology tools.

Impact of Collaborative Reflection

Engaging preservice teachers in collaborative reflection on teaching practice is instrumental in the development of a practical understanding of pedagogical theories about the use of technology in the science classroom. The results of this study suggest = that collaborative reflection helps to facilitate preservice teachers’ dev= elopment of technology integration skills, and may accelerate the development of pedagogical reasoning skills necessary for selecting the appropriate techno= logy for specific activities. Members of the two collaborative reflection groups appear to have ma= de connections between technology integration and pedagogical understandings t= hat members of the individual reflections group did not. The collaborative group members developed a view of the role of technology in science teaching that encompa= sses a wider range of learning goals and teaching strategies, especially relatin= g to inquiry. Collaborative reflec= tion seems to be the event that led to the difference between the collaborative = and individual reflection groups.

The patter= n of change in the collaborative groups’ understanding of the role of technology in the science classroom is also reflected in a comparison of interview responses from the Experienced Collaborators (EC) group. At the beginning of the two semest= ers, the participants listed examples of technology used in the science classroom. Most of the exampl= es in the initial interview included technology that is primarily used for teacher-based presentations, student-centered tutorials, and productivity s= oftware. After the third EC group meeting w= hen the role of technology in inquiry was mentioned, group members listed many = more uses of technology, including tools that students use to conduct scientific inquiries. This shift in exam= ples of technology, and presumably their understanding of technology integration= in science, is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. =

Changes in Experienced Collaborators conceptions of the purposes of instructional technology.

Feedback participants provided about the reflection process supported the conclusion that collaborative reflection influenced the participants’ understanding. They asserted = that discussion of activities and the impact of using technology was important in helping them construct their ideas about using technology in the science classroom.

= ;

Andrea (N= C): I think the group meetings [were m= ost helpful] just because you can hear everyone else’s opinions. Their ideas spark something that y= ou were thinking about, but just haven’t really put much thought into. (4^th interview, 12-1-05= )

&nbs= p;

Lorraine (EC): W= hen you actually sit down with a group of people that have all gone through the same things as you, it’s a lot easier to think about the specifics of why = it was good or why it was bad. A= nd I definitely wouldn’t have thought about it as much. Talking with everyone else, you ge= t more ideas, whereas maybe on your own you wouldn’t have thought of stuff l= ike that. It was kind of neat to = hear that all of us had kind of said the same things on our own. But when you put us all together, = we kind of build off each others’ ideas. And, you know, things were said= in there that I wouldn’t have really necessarily thought of on my own. Maybe none of us would have. But since we were all together, we= got more ideas and had more thoughts about the uses of technology, I think. (4<= sup>th interview, 11-30-05)

Implications for science= teacher education

The findin= gs of this study support the findings of other researchers who report that preser= vice teachers in some teacher education programs may not be taught to think of technology as more than just an aide for teacher presentations or drill and practice (Edelson, Gordin, & Pea, 1999; Pedersen & Yerrick, 2000).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Technology education is often addr= essed as a stand-alone course aimed at helping prospective teachers learn to use = the technology for teacher-centered tasks (Bump, 2001; Luan, et al, 2003; Yildr= im, 2000). The technology educati= on courses taken by participants in this study exemplify this approach to technology education. T= he result is that the participants in this study have not been taught to exami= ne the pedagogical reasons for using specific technologies.

Elle: So it would be nice if they not on= ly make you make these programs, but, A) the programs were applicable somewher= e, and B) you knew how to incorporate them into your classroom, or even just u= sing technology in the classroom in general.&nb= sp; They never really teach you, “This is an appropriate time to u= se technology, or you can use it this way.” And it’s just so disconnected from everything. (5^th NC group meeting, 11-21-05)

= ;

These find= ings suggest that technology education programs need to not only include teachers’ technology skills, but address the range of technological t= ools that can facilitate student learning, and the pedagogical approaches that m= ake appropriate use of these technologies.

Another implication is the need to address technology integration in science methods courses. Today’s preser= vice teachers have a higher degree of basic computer skills than teacher candida= tes only a handful of years ago, but lack experience in developing lessons that implement technology. Galloway (2001) suggests that teachers will use technology more often if they are more comfortable using it. This study suggests that comfort w= ith technology does not translate to pedagogical content knowledge without deliberately addressing the reasons for selecting activities and technology applications. Science methods courses need to explicitly include examples of technology that support inqu= iry (Ertmer, 2005) and conversations about why and how technology should be included in students’ experiences. The findings also suggest a need to expose preservice teachers to various approaches to the integration of technology through field experiences or video-based observations (Ertmer, 2005).

Key aspect= s of collaborative reflection are often used in methods courses to help students learn from observations and field experiences, but the use of technology as= a tool for teaching specific content areas needs to be included in these discussions.

Limitations and implicat= ions for future research

The findin= gs of this study also raise questions that suggest a need for further study. The participants in this study do = not represent a diverse group of teachers in terms of gender, socioeconomic sta= tus, race or cultural background. = They also represent students from only one teacher education program. Preservice teachers from other institutions learn about technology integration in different contexts with differing emphases on technology use by students and teachers.

Further st= udy needs to be conducted that examines the experiences of preservice teachers = from a broader set of contexts to see if the ideas of these fourteen participants compare to a larger population of education students. These studies may reveal the effectiveness of science methods courses that present technology integratio= n as a more deliberate part of planning science lessons.

Other stud= ies need to observe the effects of collaborative reflection about technology in the science classroom by groups of preservice teachers. Practicing teachers could be expec= ted to view technology from a very different perspective, and may be able to pract= ice different approaches to technology integration more easily than preservice teachers.

The limite= d time in which participants were engaged in this study also raises questions about the impact of collaborative reflection over an extended period of time. A longitudinal study of participan= ts from the three groups might reveal the long-term impact of their reflection= s on their future use of technology. Future plans include an assessment of technology use in some of the participants’ classrooms after they have graduated and begun their teaching careers.

This study= brings to light the need to make the pedagogical reasons for integrating technology into science lessons more explicit in science teacher education programs. The findings of this study also su= ggest that collaborative reflection is effective in helping preservice teachers l= earn to integrate technology knowledge with their understanding of science pedagogy.

Referenc= es

Ameri= can Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baldw= in, B., & Sheppard, K. (2003, Mar= ch). In search of pedagogical technology content knowledge: The role of the teacher preparation program. Paper presented = at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching= , Philadelphia, PA.

Brown= , M., & Edelson, D.C. (1998). Software in context: Desi= gning for students, teachers and classroom enactment. In A.S. Bruckman, M. Guzdial, J.L. Kolodner, & A. Ram (Eds.), Proc= eedings of ICLS 98:International Conference on the Learning Sciences, Atlanta, = GA, December 16-19, 1998, 63-69.

Bump,= W. M. (2001, March). Using a flexible format to create a constructivist learning environment in the educational computing course. In W. M. Bump (Ed.), Educational computing course. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Orlando, FL., 3-7= .

Carls= on, R. D., & Gooden, J. S. (1999). Are teacher preparation programs modeling technology use for pre-service teachers? ERS Spectrum, 17 , 11-15.

Cimik= owski, L., & Cook, J. (1996, June). A model instructional computing course= for preservice teachers. A pa= per presented at the Annual National Educational Computing Conference, Minneapolis, MN.

Conne= lly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge and the modes of knowing: Relevance for teaching and learning. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing. (84^th yearbook for the National Society for the Study of Education, pp.174-198). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Corpo= ration for Educational Technology. (2004). MyTarget2 (online assessment tool). iAssessment. Retrieved December 10= , 2004 from http://mytarget.iassessment.org.

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

Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A technique for internet-based learning. Distance Educator, 1(2), 10-13.

Edels= on, D. C. (1998, December). Matching the design of activities = to the affordances of software to support inquiry-based learning. In A.S. Bruckman, M. Guzdial, J.L. Kolodner, & A. Ram (Eds.), Proc= eedings of ICLS ’98: International Conference on the Learning Sciences, 7= 7-83.

Edels= on, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391-450.

Elbaz= , F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London: Croom Helm.

Ertme= r, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.<= /p>

Fenst= ermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and = the known: The nature of knowledge and research on teaching. In L. D. Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 20. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Assocation.

Gabel= , D. L., & Boone, W. J. (1993). The preparation of prospective elementary science teachers in the use of technology.= Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 1, 195-2= 07.

Gallo= way, J. P. (2001, March). Technology education and integration: A position paper= on attitude, perspective and commitment. In W. M. Bump (Ed.), Educational computing course. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Orlando, FL., 30-= 31.

=

Harle= n, W. (2001). Primary science: Taking the plunge. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, B., Marx, R. & Soloway. E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In Minstell, J. &= amp; Van Zee, E. (Eds.) Inquiry into inq= uiry: Science learning and teaching (pp 283-315). Washington, D.C.= : American Association for the Advancement of Science

Kumar= , V., Bedell, J. Y., & Seed, A. H. (1999). Technology: Ca= talyst for enhancing chemical education for pre-service teachers. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 713-717.

Linco= ln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Natur= alistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Linn,= M. C. (1998). The impact of technol= ogy on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In (B. J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of S= cience Education. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Luan,= W. S., Jalil, H. A., Ayub, A. F. M., Bakar, K. A., & Hong, T. S. (2003). Teaching a discrete information technology course in a constructivist learning environment: Is it effective for Malaysian pre-service teachers? Internet and Higher Education, 6¸= ; 193-204.

Mehli= nger, H. D. (1996). School reform in the information age. Phi Delta Kapp= an, 77, 400-407.

Merri= am, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

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

National Center for Education Statistics [N= CES]. (2000, September). Teachers' tools for the 21^st century: A re= port on teachers' use of technology (Report No. NCES 2000-102). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.=

Natio= nal Research Council [NRC]. (1996). Nat= ional Science Education Standards. National Academy Press: Washington, = D.C.

Osgut= horpe, R. T. (1999, April). The role of collaborative reflection in developing a culture of inquiry in a school-university partnership. Paper presented at the annual meeti= ng of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec= .

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

Patto= n, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & = evaluation methods (3^rd ed.). <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Thousand Oaks, CA.= : Sage Publications