Classroom

Technologies
Support Document
4/15/2013
Arndell Anglican College
Brad Murphy

Why Use Technology in the Science Classroom?

Effective ICT classroom implementation can result in learning in a much deeper and more efficient
way. Combining text and graphics together minimises split-attention thereby significantly reducing
cognitive load on students (Kurt, 2012) since close integration of pictures and words allows students
to hold both at the same time in their working memory (Figure 3). SMART Notebook used effectively
significantly addresses this through the integration of sources such as web-pages, videos and words.
Technology should not be used for its own sake or as a peripheral add on but must be carefully
considered and implemented in such a way as to add value to the learning of students. At the heart
of effective ICT classroom integration is good pedagogy.
In the science classroom there are compelling reasons for using technology being mandated in the
NSW Syllabus for the Australian Curriculum to be implemented from 2014. Embedded within this
document are the Learning Across the Curriculum content including General capabilities
encompassing the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours assisting students to live and work
successfully in the 21st century. (Board of Studies NSW, 2012) Included in this is the specific
capability of Information and communication technology appearing throughout the content
outcomes of the K-10 syllabus. Studies have indicated that the impact of ICT is greater in science
learning than many other subjects as many abstract concepts involving things too small, large, fast or
slow to observe require models for understanding (Webb, 2008). Other studies have indicated no
benefit on student outcomes through ICT use (Webb, 2008) however this may be due to ineffective
pedagogical implementation rather than a limitation of the technology itself.

Teachers are often intimidated in using technology labelling their students digital natives and
themselves digital immigrants (Prensky, 2001) creating a false dichotomy of those who were born
post 1979 being proficient in technology use compared to those born before (Ng, 2012). 'Digital
Natives' is a generalisation like 'Baby Boomer' who all have varied skills and limitations. Digital
Natives were simply born in the digital era with most of their ICT skills developed outside of formal
education for socialising hence they are often unskilled in using ICT for learning (Ng, 2012) with
recent research revealing large gaps in students' knowledge of technology use for learning (Voogt,
2011). Therefore students can benefit from so called 'Digital Immigrant' educators making the
pedagogical and content links to technology (TPACK) to enrich learning. Our job is to teach students
digital literacy in the context of learning using a variety of ICT strategies.

As we move into affordances for planning of ICT it is important to consider the following
constructivist student centred questions:

what am I teaching?

Why am I teaching it this way?

How might I teach it better?

It is important we start with content knowledge before applying ICT. The following continuum in
helping to remember student centred authentic learning is important.

figure 1
(Finger, 2007)

Affordances and limitations/issues of three technologies.

'Canole and Dykes' taxonomy of ICT affordance and Glenn Finger's framework of learning theories
are used below.

Smart phone
Affordances
Accessibility: can access large
amounts of information easily
via network/internet.
Light/portable/robust; easily
take/upload photos/videos of
class activities/experiments to
PC
Speed of Change: immediate
access to information (email &
rss feeds, internet, apps),
Diversity: access to multiple
modes and other learners email, facebook, dropbox,
apps such as iTunes, podcasts
etc, simulations)

Limitations/issues
Information overload, quality
assurance, Limited microphone
range/small screen size;
Transferring video to PC requires
expertise

Lack of
authority/reflection/critical
thought
Closed source excluding third
party applications; Inappropriate
use during class: texting,
accessing inappropriate
websites, facebook, cyberbullying

Related learning
theory
Social Constructivism;
connectivism

connectivism

Social constructivism;
constructionism;
connectivism.

adapted (Morgan, 2007) and (Conole, 2004)

Smart phones are under-utilised in being banned as standard practice; the more popular a
technology the greater the chance of this (Bigum, 2012). They can, however, be used for cyberbullying and a major source of distraction. This is a constraint in my context due to adolescence not
having the maturity to use such technology in an appropriate manner. However they can be used to
take photos and videos of experiments and field trips as shown below being used under strict
direction of the teacher appropriately.
Below (figure 2) are photo's taken with my own classes and students also took similar photo's after
which we were able to share and discuss the experience adding great value and increased
enthusiasm to the learning experience. Such learning is supported by social constructivism whereby
students working as a team take and share photos to solve a problem or discuss an observation
facilitating collaboration and communication. It is important that the teacher guides students to
ensure collaborative discussion and reflection takes place. Allowing students to make videos (and
photos) could develop their observational skills and understanding of concepts (Webb, 2008) and in
my experience this was exactly the case.

Figure 2

Determining distance to star

simulation activity. This is an
activity as part of the 'Space to
Grow' project in partnership
with Charles Sturt & Macquarie
Universities. Such research
projects allow students to gain
insights into how real science is
conducted (Webb, 2008)

Photos of cells taken down the

eyepiece of a microscope and a
photo taken on a field trip of an
octopus.
All these photos were taken through
my iphone and automatically
uploaded to dropbox. It was very
handy to put the cell images up on
the IWB to discuss the practical task
with year 8.

Laptop
Affordances
Accessibility: Easy to store and access
large volumes of information; running of
software; portability: link between
different learning/work locations;
connecting to projectors, etc; Increased
efficiency in planning and preparation such
as use of hyperlinks, network connectivity
to resources and work
Speed of Change: immediate access to
information (email & rss feeds, internet,
software),
Diversity: access to multiple modes and
other learners - email, facebook, dropbox,
podcasts, simulations etc
Communication/Collaboration: facilitating
interaction with others such as through email, blogs, wikis, epals, well written
WebQuests
Multimodal/non-linear: use of hypertext,
search engines, pearltrees/delicious to link
information
Adapted (Parr, 2011) and (Conole, 2004)

Limitations/issues
cannot be used in large
groups on their own; easily
broken and vandalised; not
as portable as smaller
devices such as tablets, iPods
and smart phones

Related learning theory

Social Constructivism;
connectivism

Lack of deep reflection and

critical thought due
immediacy and volume of
information.
Inappropriate use during
class:, accessing
inappropriate websites
Lack of identity, peripheral
engagement; Students can
easily be off task visiting in
appropriate sites/games;
information overload.
Complex to set up requiring
training/skill

Connectivism

Social constructivism;
constructionism;
connectivism.
Social constructivism;
connectivism

connectivism

Laptops in our context are essential for teaching as marking the roll and administration of the
welfare system requires one even before interfacing with IWB's. Years 7-10 students have access to
laptops via computer labs however there is a major issue of vandalism such as keys being pulled off
them, an issue not encountered by desktops. Students as of next year will have laptops issued to
them meaning the issues and affordances above will be more important in their management.
Laptops have great power in enhancing student learning in terms of collaboration through
WebQuests, blogs, wikis, data manipulation, storage, and sharing, as well as access to models.
However if the issues above are not addressed then they can create wasted time and loss of quality
learning.

IWB/SMART Notebook
IWB/SMART Notebook's major affordance is that of interactivity since users can modify the
contained form and content in real time (Steuer, 1992). Interactivity improves learning because it
reduces cognitive load and students learning is improved in science when graphics and animations
are included alongside verbal description (Mayer, 2002) shown graphically below.
Figure3:

(Mayer, 2002)

In designing an IWB lesson it is important that unnecessary images, sounds and words are excluded
as this can hinder rather than add value to learning (Mayer, 2002). A key affordance of IWB's are
their interactivity (Betcher, 2009) hence there is no value domesticating them into the old paradigm
(Bigum, 2012) of using them like a whiteboard with a data projector shone onto it. Unlike the
whiteboard the IWB should not be viewed as a tool of the teacher but as a resource to be used by
the whole class (Betcher, 2009). The IWB itself is a benign technology, it is the use of the software,
SMART Notebook, that makes it come alive (Betcher, 2009).

Affordances
Accessibility: Easy to store and access
large volumes of information; running of
software; portability: link between
different learning/work locations;
connecting to projectors, etc; Increased
efficiency in planning and preparation
such as use of hyperlinks, network
connectivity to resources and work
Speed of Change: making processes
happen more quickly than other
methods

Limitations/issues
not as portable as smaller
devices or not portable at all;
surface can be damaged;
screen can be obscured or
hard to reach for smaller
students; need for realignment if board/projector
not secure
Lack of deep reflection and
critical thought due to
immediacy; fast paced
pedagogy can be confusing
for students,
pedagogic value in
slow board work. (Koenraad,
2008)

Diversity: access to multiple modes and

other learners - email, facebook,
dropbox, podcasts, simulations etc
Communication/Collaboration:
facilitating interaction with others such
as through - email, blogs, wikis, epals,
well written WebQuests;
IWB assists teachers in bringing the
outside world into the classroom to
create more authentic
contexts for situated learning;
shared thinking is more likely to be
owned by the group as a socially
interconnected and co-constructed
understanding.
Multimodal/non-linear: use of
hypertext, search engines,
pearltrees/delicious to link information
Provisionality: facility to change content

peripheral engagement;
information overload;
IWBs tend to reinforce
established styles of
whole-class teaching sometimes extending the
teachers whole-class mode
unproductively rather than
promoting new,
innovative teaching
approaches (Koenraad,
2008)
Complex to set up requiring
training/skill

Interactivity: ability to respond to user

input repeatedly; tactile; powerful
software with extensive suite of images,
sounds, pre-made lessons, tools,
layering, saving & recording screens,
embedding video, sounds and websites;
ability to display the internet and
applications within allowing interactive
collaboration that cannot be done in a
large group with a computer alone.
Adapted (Parr, 2011) and (Conole, 2004); (Kennewell, 2007) and (Brown, Stephen)

Related learning
theory
Social
Constructivism;
connectivism

Connectivism

Social
constructivism;
constructionism;
connectivism.
Social
constructivism;
connectivism

connectivism

Social
constructivism;
connectivism
Social
constructivism;
connectivism

A major benefit of use is once a teacher becomes confident with IWB's they tend to use other
aspects of their computer more which Betcher terms the 'Trojan Horse' effect of IWB's.
An issue to be wary of could be that although the IWB reduces the risk of failure through the ability
to change content and instant feedback the tendency of students could be to simply drag/reveal and
change until they get the right answer, leading to cognitive laziness, rather than thinking about it
properly. This is where good pedagogy is important in how the teacher structures the activity and
guides the student (Kennewell, 2007).

SMART Notebook/board use in Science.

For quite some time constructivist theories of learning have been popular with the belief that
knowledge and meaning is generated through the interaction between their prior knowledge and
experiences. A newer concept of learning is emerging that emphasises the importance of
collaboration and connecting information (Starkey, 2012)from a number of sources leading to a
synthesis of new meaning. Knowledge is increasingly becoming decentralised, through web 2.0, and
the presentation of knowledge as less linear and more three-dimensional (Starkey, 2012). IWB's
maximise the use of laptops, software and the internet to connect information, ideas and processes
together in new ways as part of knowledge development. This is very powerful as authentic
integrated technology must be more than just an add on but part of the daily activities in the
classroom enabling students to demonstrate what they know in new and creative ways (Diaz, 1999).
Web 2.0 technologies provide students opportunities to network, publish their own work, and share
learning with peers and experts (Cox, 2013) making learning more meaningful and memorable.
The interactive nature of IWB's is particularly useful in science through displaying models of abstract
concepts that students often have difficulty with such as the structure of the atom. Students benefit
greatly through incorporating the 'Build an Atom' activity from the 'PhET' website into smart
notebook to be interacted with physically on the board. The whole class is interacting mentally while
one student is involved physically building the atom. Students take turns and learn very efficiently
due to the visual and tactile nature of the task that only an IWB can offer. Simulations such as those
are very effective because they can: reduce the complexity of variables being addressed at any one
time; are easily repeatable; speed up or slow down time for phenomenon that otherwise could not
be observed; eliminate dangers that may be present in the real thing; help to scaffold learning and
increase motivation (McInerney, 2002)

Used in such a way the IWB is effective in gaining and keeping students' focus on the subject matter
rather than the teacher or other students and stimulating thinking (Kennewell, 2007)
TIP and TPACK

In deciding what tasks to design using IWB's it is important to choose collaborative technologies that
fit with the pedagogy of the instruction as well as adequately using the technological tools (Bower,
2008). The use of a Technology Integration Planning Model (TIP) and the Technological Pedagogical
and Content Knowledge (TPACK) Venn diagram as part of this is a useful tool for integrating ICT into
the science classroom (Roblyer & Doering, 2013) and teaching students digital literacy - the ability to
create meanings and communicate effectively with others through digital tools including to search,
assess and synthesis information from digital resources (Ng, 2012).
Much of this involves higher order thinking skills and it is here that the teacher is indispensible in
providing the necessary scaffolding such as through templates and tables helping students act as if
they are more skilled than they really are (Dodge, 1995) encouraging motivation and facilitating
advanced thinking (March, 2007).

TIP Phase 1:
First topics within the syllabus/program that will particularly benefit from ICT
strategies will be identified and relative advantages will be presented. What
methods, approaches, activities will add value to the teaching & learning of
specified topics and how will it look like.

(Roblyer & Doering, 2013)

Step 1: Tech-PACK will be used as a strategy to identify what must be investigated further in order to integrate ICT strategies in an efficient and
effective manner. Instead of Tech-PACK, Tech-PASK may also be used (Technological Pedagogical and Science Knowledge) also known as TPASK
(Jimoyiannis, 2010).
Step 2: Using Tech-PACK will help maximize the technological strategy by integrating it with the desired scientific knowledge and pedagogy (the
approach taken in the teaching & learning process to maximize learning).
TIP Phase 2:
Step 3: Specific scientific skills such as: interpreting models, making inferences, graphing, proposing questions/hypotheses, relevant to the topic
and technological approach will be decided upon along with the demonstration of designing ways to determine the success of the activities and
students learning.
Step 4: Different classes will be considered as part of the presentation. Some approaches taken with the top higher ability streamed class may
be different to a mixed ability class and different again for a class high in special needs/support while other approaches may be appropriate for
all students. This, along with the specific requirements of the topic at hand, will be considered and demonstrated in the overview presentation.
Step 5: Smart Notebook and smart Boards are being used as ALL teachers in our school have access to them in their classrooms with their school
supplied laptop. Scootle will be used, among other online strategies, as our school has inserviced teachers in the use of scootle and internet as
well as network access is very reliable. Since there is little chance this software, network, and hardware malfunctioning then there is much
greater chance of the Science staff successfully integrating the technological approach.
TIP Phase 3:
An outline of possible approaches in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the activity will be outlined. This might include formal data if the
task forms part of an assessment task or may be in the form of student questionnaires, teacher journal/logs, checklists, etc. Based upon the
outcomes from such evaluation approaches changes can then be made to improve the specified activities even further.

figure 4

Appendix
Peer coaching IWB & TPACK
The most effective way for teachers to learn how to implement ICT strategies is through peer coaching/tutoring
as it has a built in form of positive peer pressure (Fullan, 2010). This approach allows training to be linked
directly to planning lessons making it more likely that technology will be incorporated (Hartwig, 2003).
Teachers benefit by learning how to use specific technology within their own content knowledge area and are
more likely to transfer its use into their own classroom through seeing the practical value in it (OttenbreitLeftwich, 2010).
Below is a very useful model in thinking through the steps of implementing TPACK using a peer coaching model.
As a starting point topics and concepts are identified that students find difficult and that ICT will add value to
are chosen using content knowledge. Then, though pedagogical knowledge, the best methods of teaching the
content will be determined through the use of ICT or otherwise. Following the rest of the model through
involved peer coaching and finally reflection of TPACK.

IWB-based model of TPACK-COIR, (Jang, 2010)

figure 5

Bibliography
Betcher, C. L. (2009). Eight Key Principles for Effective IWB Teaching. In C. L. Betcher, The Interactive
Whiteboard Revolution: Teaching with IWB's. (pp. 63-76). Camberwell, QLD, Australia: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Bigum, C. (2012). Schools and Computers: Tales of a Digital Romance. In L. B. Rowan, Transformative
Approaches to New Technologies and Student Diversity in Futures Oriented Classrooms. (pp. 24-37).
Netherlands, Netherlands: Springer.
Board of Studies NSW. (2012). Science K-10 Syllabus. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Board of Studies.
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance Analysis: matching learning tasks with learning technologies.
Educational Media International , 45 (1), 3-15.
Brown, Stephen. Interactive Whiteboards in Education. York: TechLearn.
Conole, G. D. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies?
ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology , 12 (2), 113-124.
Cox, M. (2013). Formal to informal learning with IT: research challenges and issues for e-learning.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 29, 85-105.
Diaz, L. (1999). Integrated technology: Some things you should know. Learning and Leading with
Technology. , 27 (3).
Dodge, B. (1995). FOCUS: Five Rules for writing a great WebQuest. Learning and Leading with
Technology , 28 (8).
Finger, G. R.-P. (2007). ICT planning issues and ideas: how do teachers plan for ICT integration and
for transforming learning with ICT? In G. R.-P. Finger, Transforming Learning with ICT: making it
happen. (pp. 108-150). Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia: Pearson Education Australia.
Fullan, M. (2010). Positive Pressure. In A. L. Hargreaves, Second International Handbook of
Educational Change. (pp. 119-130). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.
Hartwig, B. H. (2003, November). UUpdating today's Teachers: Integrating technology across
curriculum and instruction. Black Hills State University.
Jang, S. (2010). Integrating the interactive whiteboard and peer coaching to develop TPACK of
secondary science teachers. Computers & Education , 55, 1744-1751.
Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and Implementing an Integrated Technological Pedagogical Science
Knowledge Framework for Science Teachers Professional development. Computers & Education ,
1259-1269.
Kennewell, S. B. (2007). The Features of Interactive Whiteboards and their Influence on Learning.
Learning, Media and Technology. , 32 (3), 227-241.
Koenraad, A. (2008). Interactive Whiteboards in educational practice: the research literature
reviewed. Hogeschool Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Education.

Kurt, S. (2012). Issues to Consider in Designing QebQuests: A Literature Review. Computers in the
Schools , 29 (3), 300-314.
March, T. (2007). Revisiting WebQuests in a Web 2 World: How developments in Technology and
pedagogy combine to scaffold personal learning. Interactive Educational Multimedia , 15, 1-17.
Mayer, R. (2002). Cognitive Theory and the Design of Multimedia Instruction: An example of the
two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning , 89,
55-71.
McInerney, D. (2002). Information Technology: Implications for Effective Learning. In D. McInerney,
Educational Psychology: Constructing Learning (pp. 155-181). Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia:
Pearson Education.
Morgan, M. B. (2007). Evaluating ICT in Education: A comparison of the affordances of the ipod, DS
and Wii. ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning., (pp. 717-726). Singapore.
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education , 59, 1065-1078.
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. G. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing
professional and student needs. Computers & Education , 55, 1321-1335.
Parr, J. W. (2011). The Teacher's Laptop as a Hub for Learning in the Classroom. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education , 44 (1), 53-73.
Prensky, M. (2001, September/October). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon , 9
(5), pp. 1-6.
Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (6th ed.).
New York: Pearson.
Starkey, L. (2012). Knowledge and Connectivism. In L. Starkey, Teaching and Learning in the Digital
Age (pp. 20-28). New York: Routledge.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of
Communication , 42, 73-93.
Voogt, J. K. (2011). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning?
A Call to Action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 1-11.
Webb, M. (2008). Impact of IT on Science Education. In J. &. Voogt (Ed.), International Handbook of
Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. (pp. 133-148). New York: Springer.