Science educators' beliefs and attitudes about technology integration in the classroom

Margaret Thayer

Educators do not integrate new technologies into their classrooms for many reasons, and despite the seemingly close association between science and technology, science educators face the same hurdles to technology integration as other educators. Even when educators have access to technology tools, their attitudes and beliefs about technology often determine the level of technology integration in the curriculum. This paper explores why science educators may have negative attitudes and beliefs about technology and suggests strategies to encourage classroom technology integration. Definition of Technology Integration Technology use and technology integration are not synonymous terms. No clear definition of technology integration in education exists, and understandings of the term range from low-level tasks such as Internet searches to high-level tasks such as multimedia presentations and data interpretation (Hew and Brush, 2007, pp. 224-225). But any definition that prescribes specific technologies is limiting, since technology continues to evolve at a blinding pace; for example, today's immersive technologies (such as augmented reality) may constitute the high-level technologies that educators could not have imagined two years ago. Hixon and Buckenmeyer (2009) offer a more timeless and functional definition by stating that technology integration "...suggests a seamless, effective, and efficient incorporation of technology into daily routines and instructional practices" (p. 132). Technology Integration in Science Education Although science and technology are widely considered to have a close association, educators often see the two disciplines as distinct or even conflicting. Irving and Bell (2004) indicate that this disconnect exists because science and technology have differing goals: Science attempts to understand the natural world, while technology seeks to modify the world to meet human needs (p. 260). They state that the 1996 National Science Education Standards (NSES, National Research Council, 1996) offer little guidance for educators to meld the two, because the broad view of technology in the NSES does not offer a vision of educational technology integration in the classroom (p. 261). The NSES do make it clear that inquiry is essential in science education, and technology is frequently cited for its ability to enable inquiry-based science instruction. Two recent contributions to the literature support the idea that effective technology integration can enhance student learning in inquirybased science instruction. Dani and Koenig (2008) describe dozens of practical examples in the literature that demonstrate how digital technologies enhance inquiry-based science education, including tutorials, models, electronic voting machines ("clickers"), simulations, probeware, and virtual learning 2009 Margaret Thayer Page 1

communities. Dede and Barab (2009) highlight seven examples in which educators successfully integrated Web 2.0 technologies, immersive interfaces, and games into the science curriculum. Sidawi (2009) notes that science educators often see inquiry-based instruction as competing with the need to teach the content required by standardized tests. However, Sidawi makes the case that a curriculum of designing technology can integrate both content and process: "...designing technology provides the context through which students can apply their scientific knowledge whereas science provides part of the conceptual knowledge needed for the students to develop their design" (p. 270). Educators' Beliefs and Attitudes In their attempts to pinpoint the reasons why educators do not integrate technology in the classroom, researchers paint a complex picture. In a comprehensive literature review, Hew and Brush (2007) identified 123 barriers that prevent technology integration into the classroom (p. 226). Among these barriers, educators' negative beliefs and attitudes toward technology present a significant factor. After reviewing dozens of studies on technology integration barriers, Keengwe, Onchwari, and Wachira (2008) concluded that "...the real challenges of integrating information technology into the classroom depend on the behavior, investments, and commitment of individual teachers" (p. 562). Hixon and Buckenmeyer (2009) concluded that "...teachers' core values about teaching and learning are the primary obstacles to successful technology integration" (p. 130). The reasons identified for educators' negative beliefs and attitudes about technology can be summarized as follows:

Educators who have not experienced or observed technology's relevance to learning tend to view technology as a time-consuming imposition, so they instead rely on traditional teaching methods (Ertmer, 2005, p. 30; Li, 2007, pp. 391-392). Educators may be reluctant to adopt technologies that challenge the "subject culture," which includes the set of practices, expectations, and norms that develop among educators in a content area (Hew and Brush, 2007, p. 231). In the science subject culture, the conflict identified by Sidawi (2009) between basic science content and inquiry-based science instruction presents a subject culture barrier. Educators may believe technology will dehumanize the learning process (Hixon and Buckenmeyer, 2009, p. 136). Educators may fear that they will be replaced by technology (Li, 2007, p. 390).

Strategies to Address Negative Beliefs and Attitudes Strategies that encourage technology integration must address multiple barriers to create an environment that supports technology integration (Hew and Brush, 2007, p. 241; Hixon and Buckenmeyer, 2009, p. 141). Strategies that address educators' negative beliefs and attitudes about technology focus on professional development programs and techniques that empower educators to 2009 Margaret Thayer Page 2

make decisions about technology integration. These strategies suggest that institutions should do the following:

Provide professional development opportunities that: 1. challenge educators' underlying beliefs about the relationship between technology and learning rather than focusing solely on technical skills (Higgins and Spitulnik, 2008, pp. 513, 516; Hixon and Buckenmeyer, 2009, pp. 141-142); 2. are appropriate for each teacher's level of technology aptitude (Hixon and Buckenmeyer, 2009, p. 142); and 3. are consistent with individual teachers' needs and give teachers hands-on practice and classroom management skills (Hew and Brush, 2007, p. 238).

Create a "bottom-up" (teacher-driven) vision and technology integration plan that empowers teachers to make decisions about technology use specific to their curriculum (Hew and Brush, 2007, p. 232). Establish a professional learning community to enable teachers to discuss technology integration and generate an environment in which innovation with technology is valued (Ertmer, 2005, pp. 34-35). Demonstrate a new technology's ability to accomplish a task that is valued by educators before introducing its ability to accomplish new tasks (Ertmer, 2005, p. 31). Provide teachers with vicarious experiences (video or Web-based models) that demonstrate a technology's usefulness (Ertmer, 2005, p. 34). Apply the same principles of technology-enhanced inquiry-based science for students to teachers' technology training (Higgins and Spitulnik, 2008, p. 516).

Conclusion Despite the apparent close relationship between inquiry-based science and technology, science educators do not integrate technology in their curriculum for the same reasons given by other educators. Key among these reasons is that educators are rarely shown how technology can improve student outcomes or how they can integrate technology into their instruction. In addition, science educators may view technology-enhanced inquiry as a distraction from basic science instruction. To create an environment that encourages technology integration, schools should adopt strategies that create effective professional development experiences and empower teachers to make technology integration decisions. In the absence of institutional support, science educators should advocate for professional development opportunities that promote an environment of technology integration. References Dani, D. E., & Koenig, K. M. (2008). Technology and reform-based science education. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 204-211. doi: 10.1080/00405840802153825

2009 Margaret Thayer

Page 3

Dede, C., & Barab, S. (2009). Emerging technologies for learning science: A time of rapid advances. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18, 301-304. doi: 10.1007/s10956-009-9172-4 Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 1556-6501. doi: 10.1007/BF02504683 Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(3), 1556-6501. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5 Higgins, T. E., & Spitulnik, M. W. (2008). Supporting teachers use of technology in science instruction through professional development: A literature review. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 17(5), 511-521. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9118-2 Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools: Implications for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26, 130-146. doi: 10.1080/07380560902906070 Irving, K. E., & Bell, R. L. (2004). Double visions: Educational technology in standards and assessments for science and mathematics. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 13(2), 255-266 Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 17(6), 560-565. doi: 10.1007/s10956008-9123-5 Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377-397 National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=1 Sidawi, M. M. (2009). Teaching science through designing technology. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 19, 269-287. doi: 10.1007/s10798-007-9045-1

2009 Margaret Thayer

Page 4