University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A multi-case study on teaching practices and how teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry in 1:1 classrooms

(USC Thesis Other)

A multi-case study on teaching practices and how teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry in 1:1 classrooms

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

1

A MULTI-CASE STUDY ON TEACHING PRACTICES AND HOW TEACHERS USE
TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPORT SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY IN 1:1 CLASSROOMS

by

Nel C. Venzon, Jr.

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Nel C. Venzon, Jr.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

2

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

3

Acknowledgments
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my committee chair, Dr. Julie Slayton,
for the endless support and believing in me. I am indebted to your continuous guidance and
patience over the years. You have challenged me to pursue excellence in every aspect of this
doctorate journey.
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Frederick Freking and Dr. Monique
Datta, for the critical feedback and providing professional insights over the course of my
graduate studies.
I would like to thank Mark Ahsing for the unlimited encouragement to complete my
dissertation journey. You have been very supportive since the beginning of the writing process. I
am eternally grateful for your all your insights and unconditional support.
I would like to thank Jason Navarro for being patient in this course of my journey. Thank
you for the motivation to keep me going during the most challenging times.
I would like to express my gratitude to my beloved family. Thank you for the sacrifices
you have made as I endured this monumental academic and professional milestone.
Finally, I would like to thank the teacher participants in this study for providing the
opportunities to achieve the purpose of this investigation. Your participation in this study
provided critical insights into the teaching practices and use of technology to support scientific
inquiry.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

4

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................3

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................6

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................7

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................8

Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................9
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................9
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................15
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................16
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................17
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................19

Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................21
Effective General Teaching Practices ................................................................................22
Effective Teaching Practices in Science ............................................................................34
Technology Use in the Classroom .....................................................................................48
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................58
Summary ............................................................................................................................61

Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................62
Research Design .................................................................................................................62
Site Selection Criteria ........................................................................................................63
Participant Selection ..........................................................................................................65
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................67
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................71
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................72
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................74

Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................76
Case Study #1: Ms. Anderson – Ninth Grade Integrated Science .....................................77
Instructional Delivery ............................................................................................80
Inquiry Process .......................................................................................................94
Contextualized Learning ......................................................................................114
Collaboration ........................................................................................................123
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................139
Case Study #2: Mrs. Brown – Eighth Grade Science ......................................................143
Instructional Delivery ..........................................................................................144
Inquiry Process .....................................................................................................164
Contextualized Learning ......................................................................................176
Collaboration ........................................................................................................193
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................200
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

5

Cross-Case Analysis ........................................................................................................203
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................213

Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations in Relation to Practice, Policy,
and Future Research .....................................................................................................................215
Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................216
Ms. Anderson .......................................................................................................216
Mrs. Brown ..........................................................................................................220
Implications and Recommendations ................................................................................224
For Practice ..........................................................................................................224
For Policy .............................................................................................................228
For Future Research .............................................................................................230

References ....................................................................................................................................232

Appendices
Appendix A: Pre-observation Interview Protocol ............................................................249
Appendix B: Post-observation Interview Protocol ..........................................................259
Appendix C: Classroom Observation Protocol ................................................................268
Appendix D: Student Work Sample of the “Do’s and Don’ts” “T” Table ......................269
Appendix E: Information for the Chemical Reaction Project ..........................................270
Appendix F: Energy Balance Recording Sheet ...............................................................274
Appendix G: Photo of a 3-D Model of the Earth’s Energy Budget Activity ...................275
Appendix H: Information for the Earth’s Energy Budget Activity .................................276
Appendix I: Photo of an Energy Use Monitor Belkin Device .........................................288

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

6

List of Tables
Table 1: Digital Devices AP and NWP Teachers are Using in Their Classrooms ........................50
Table 2: Educational Activity/Task AP and NWP Teachers Have Students Do Online ...............51
Table 3: Percent and Frequency of AP and NWP Teachers Involved in Various Online Teaching
Related Tasks .....................................................................................................................52
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

7

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual framework model ........................................................................................58

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

8

Abstract
Despite the widespread availability and frequency of use of technological tools in the
classrooms, there is little empirical research on examining the teaching practices and how
teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry. This multi-case study examined the
teaching practices of two science teachers and how they used the technology to support scientific
inquiry in 1:1 classrooms. The findings of this study indicated that the teacher participants’ use
of time and technology supported simple inquiry. Technological tools engaged students in
scientific processes, but not complex thinking or student questioning, during inquiry process.
Furthermore, the study found that technology use supported student engagement in simple
inquiry, with or without contextualized learning. Technology use supported cooperation and
engagement of students in simple inquiry, with or without the development of scientific
knowledge. This study contributes critical knowledge on the teaching practices and how teachers
use technology to support scientific inquiry in a 1:1 classroom setting. Finally, the implications
and recommendations for practice, policy, and future research are explored.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

9

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In this chapter, I will explain the background of the problem in order to set the context for
the study. I will then present the statement of the problem, purpose, research question, and
significance of the study. I will also provide a brief description of the methodology used, as well
as the assumptions, limitations, and delimitations within this study. The focus of this dissertation
is the teaching practices and how teachers use technology to support inquiry in science classes.
Background of the Problem
Research has shown that the approaches taken to teaching science in many K-12
classrooms have not fostered student understanding or development of the content and skills
associated with understanding science (Kubicek, 2005). For decades, researchers have shown
that K-12 students are not developing an understanding of science that is useful and has practical
values in their everyday lives (Krajcik, 2001; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Rutherford & Ahlgren,
1989). Kubicek (2005) argues that inquiry-based learning has been shown to improve science
teaching and learning through the engagement of students in authentic investigations, which
results in a more realistic view of scientific endeavor as well as supporting the teaching of the
nature of science.
Within the past 20 years, inquiry researchers and practitioners in science education have
explored technological affordances to promote inquiry practice (Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx,
Bass, & Fredricks, 1998) and classroom-based technological innovations to achieve sustainable
reform (Blumenfeld, Fishman, Krajcik, & Marx, 2000; Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003). Researchers
and practitioners have pursued to investigate when technologies support students’ understanding
of science, which activities support students’ inquiry processes, and how to sustain technology-
enhanced innovations in everyday science classrooms settings (Kim, Hannafin, & Bryan, 2007).
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

10

Studies show that computer-based tools offer significant potential; however, technology in itself
is unlikely to facilitate students’ inquiry processes. Appropriate and well-designed technology
tools can promote student thinking and learning of scientific content and processes when
augmented with scaffolding from experts, teachers, peers, and community members (Kim et al.,
2007).
Although previous research recognized the importance of teachers’ roles in inquiry
classes, few have examined the teachers’ role in implementing and supporting technology-
enhanced tools in the classroom (Kim et al., 2007). This multi-case study investigated the
teaching practices and how teachers used technology to support scientific inquiry. In the
remaining sections in this chapter, I will set the context of this study by discussing the role of
inquiry science in student learning, the nature of technology use in the classroom, and the
relationship between inquiry science and technology to support student learning.
Deficiencies in the Current Inquiry-Based Science Curricula
The National Research Council (NRC) reports that the current high school science
laboratories do not engage students in inquiry-based learning (2005). According to the report,
although science laboratories have been a part of school science curricula for a long time, “a
clear articulation of their role in student learning remains elusive” (NRC, 2005, p. 13). Hofstein
and Lunetta (2004) and others (Roth & Garnier 2007; Wallace & Kang, 2004; Windschitl,
Thomson, & Braaten, 2008) suggest that activity without understanding is a common feature of
science laboratories in many public school classrooms. Further, as currently enacted, many
laboratories fail to contextualize the understanding of the explicit and implicit assumptions of
science, which include the epistemologies of science and the nature of scientific knowledge
(Chinn & Hmelo, 2002; Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Germann, Haskins, & Auls, 1996). High
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

11

school science laboratories focus primarily on demonstrations and experimentation aspects of the
scientific inquiry and fail to highlight the theory development, socially-negotiated nature of
scientific knowledge, and an understanding about the influence of social biases on the constructs
of science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Longino, 1990; Schwartz & Lederman, 2006; Windschitl et
al., 2008). This exclusive emphasis on the experimentation does not provide a context for high
school students to appreciate and understand how the scientific knowledge is generated and
validated (Aydeniz, Baksa, & Skinner, 2011). Aydeniz et al. (2011) explain that students
frequently engage in “scientific inquiry” by merely completing a set of activities and answering a
series of questions about their observations at the end of the lab. This narrow view of scientific
inquiry encourages the students to support a positivist view of science, because it unintentionally
promotes students to view science as a rigid, unquestionable entity of valid knowledge produced
by a step-by-step process (Charney et al., 2007). Therefore, this narrow view causes students to
limit scientific inquiry to laboratory experimentation (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Tang, Levin,
Coffey, & Hammer, 2008).
Inquiry Science Teaching
In response to the persistent inadequacies of science instruction in the United States,
current education reform efforts promote inquiry-based teaching and learning for all elementary
and secondary school students (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2009;
NRC, 2007). These reforms call for educators to portray and practice science as it is conducted
by real scientists (NRC, 1996). In order to improve scientific literacy, science should be taught
using inquiry, emphasizing process skills including nature of science (Akerson et al., 2009).
Inquiry science, a type of science instruction, engages students in tasks such as active learning,
emphasizing questioning, data analysis, and critical thinking (Jarrett, 1997). Students’ actions
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

12

during inquiry science should include engaging in the following activities in a cyclic, non-linear
order: ask questions about objects, organisms, and events in the environment; plan and conduct
simple investigations; use appropriate tools and techniques to gather and interpret data; use
evidence and scientific knowledge to develop explanations; and communicate investigation
procedures, data, and explanations, to others (Carin, Bass, & Contant, 2005). Although there is
no universally accepted description of the components of scientific inquiry, it is convenient to
describe the scientific process in terms of six interrelated, but not necessarily ordered principles
of inquiry: present significant questions that can be investigated empirically, link research to
relevant theory, use methods that allow direct investigation of the question, provide a reasonable
and explicit chain of reasoning, replicate and generalize across various studies, and disseminate
research to encourage professional review and analysis (Shavelson & Towne, 2002). Shavelson
and Towne (2002) choose the phrase “guiding principles” intentionally to emphasize the notion
that the principles of inquiry guide, but do not provide an algorithm for, scientific inquiry. When
conducting science as inquiry, teachers should determine how to focus, challenge and promote
student learning, and make decisions about the process of inquiry initiation, encouragement of
discourse, how to address misconceptions, and how much guidance should be provided in the
inquiry process (Carin et al., 2005).
Transforming traditional science teaching into inquiry-based practices requires strategic
planning from teachers (Krajcik et al., 1998; Songer, Lee, & Kam, 2002; Songer, Lee, &
McDonald, 2003). The successful enactment of inquiry science teaching demands that teachers
understand the fundamental concepts in the discipline and be able to provide reflective guidance
for students as they face challenging ideas in science (Loucks-Horsley, 2003). For the inquiry
approaches to work effectively in science classrooms, teachers must acknowledge the importance
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

13

of inquiry teaching and incorporate science activities into their daily teaching practices
(McDonald & Songer, 2008). This challenge is difficult to overcome in traditional classroom
settings due in part to teachers’ naïve views of scientific inquiry (Eick, 2000). Time, curriculum
priorities, and the pressure of test-driven accountability policies also make it difficult to improve
the same challenges that continue to exist in science classrooms (Abrams, Southerland, & Silva,
2007; Aydeniz, 2007; Blanchard, Southerland, & Granger, 2009).
Use of Technology in the Classroom
Technology offers innovative and creative ways of teaching and learning, and provides
new ways for all stakeholders in education to be openly accountable to students, parents, and the
community overall (NRC, 1995). The National Academy of Sciences suggests that emerging
technologies could potentially enhance learning and the construction of new knowledge for
information, feedback, and inspiration (NRC, 1999). Rapid advances in technology have also
revolutionized the way in which children learn, play, communicate, and socialize (Mouza &
Lavigne, 2013). Technological gadgets, mobile phones, and involvement in social network sites
have become part of youth culture (Ito et al., 2008). These forms of technology, referred to as
digital technologies, have generated a new culture of learning (Thomas & Brown, 2011). This
new culture of learning mostly occurs outside traditional educational forms and is different from
the current school culture (Cuban, 2001; Sawyer, 2006).
Deep understanding occurs when students actively construct knowledge for themselves
by engaging in real-world events and by reflecting on their experiences (Krajcik & Blumenfeld,
2006). The value of digital technologies is that they provide students with real-world experiences
(Papert, 1993). Placing an increased emphasis on a situative view of knowledge and learning is a
way of helping students understand how their academic learning applies and relate to real-life
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

14

situations (Greeno, 2006). When guided by the situative view of learning, technology can bring
learners together and support the social construction of knowledge (Mouza & Lavigne, 2013).
Technology should be a tool to aid educators to meet the educational needs of all children
(Noeth & Volkov, 2004). Technologies cannot function as solutions in isolation, rather, they
must be thought of as primary ingredients in making it possible for schools to undertake core
educational challenges (Bennett, Culp, Honey, Tally, & Spielvogel, 2000). Bajcsy (2002)
suggests that technology can serve as an enabler in teaching and learning to help organize and
provide structure for materials to students, to help students, teachers, and parents interact
anytime and anywhere, to simulate, model, demonstrate, and interact with scientific structures
and processes, to assist in learning history and determining future trends, and to provide services
to all individuals who need it.
Becker (2000) and Bakia, Yang, and Mitchell (2008) argue that although technology use
in schools has increased, it has remained limited with respect to students’ school activities and
experiences, both in terms of time and nature of use. Although numerous studies have shown the
positive outcomes of technology on student learning, the potential of digital technologies to
enhance academic teaching and learning is still underdeveloped in the literature (Mouza &
Lavigne, 2013).
Technology and Inquiry
While technology has the potential to foster inquiry and influence learning outcomes,
teachers also play crucial roles in inquiry-oriented classes (Kim et al., 2007). Teachers design
and decide which tasks to implement, facilitate student activities, and evaluate their work.
Innovative and successful teachers in an inquiry-based class plays multiple roles: motivator,
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

15

diagnostician, guide, innovator, experimenter, researcher, modeler, mentor, collaborator, and
learner (Crawford, 2000).
For both technology and/or teaching to facilitate student inquiry in science, certain things
have to be true. Technology is only a tool and as effective as the way in which it is used
supports. Similarly, not all teaching is equal. Inquiry based instruction requires that teachers have
a certain skill set and understanding with respect to the content. For teachers to use technology
effectively in support of inquiry based learning, they must have both skill sets and
understandings, those related to high quality instruction in science and those related to the
effective implementation of technology in the classroom.
Statement of the Problem
Although previous research recognized the importance of teachers’ roles in inquiry
classes, few have examined the teachers’ role in implementing and supporting technology-
enhanced tools in the classroom (Kim et al., 2007). Edelson (2001) and Stratford (1997) have
proposed rationale for technology-supported inquiry-based learning. Barab, Hay, and Duffy
(1998) and Barab and Luehmann (2003) have also demonstrated specific roles for computer-
based inquiry tools. However, little is known “why and how inquiry tools work in some
teaching-learning contexts but not in others” (Kim et al., 2007, p. 1018). Furthermore, few
examples or cases are available to convince stakeholders of the significance “of knowing how to
support inquiry using computers and tools” (Kim et al., 2007, p. 1018). Kim et al. (2007) argue
that while computer-based tools offer significant potential, technology in itself “is unlikely to
support students’ inquiry processes” (p. 1018). They (2007) further assert that appropriate and
well-designed computer tools can promote students’ thinking and learning of scientific content
and processes when coupled with scaffolding from experts, teachers, peers, and members of the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

16

community. However, few researchers have investigated approaches to balancing technology and
teacher scaffolding in technology-supported inquiry classes. Moreover, little is known how much
teachers do (or should) direct students’ tool use when engaging in the inquiry processes.
Research findings provide little information as to teacher facilitation of student-centered inquiry
in classrooms equipped with technology (Kim et al., 2007). This dissertation also explored the
nature of supporting scientific inquiry in a 1:1 classroom. Bebell and O’Dwyer (2010) argue that
although there has been increased interest in implementing 1:1 computing initiatives in schools
in recent years, “relatively little empirical research has focused on the outcomes of these
investments” (p. 4). Bebell and O’Dwyer (2010) recommend that “schools which find
themselves with laptops for every teacher and student must focus on how this hardware will be
used to support…a wide range of educational activities” (p. 12). They (2010) further posit that
1:1 computing initiatives “only describe the ratio of technology access, not how it is being used
[emphasis in the original]” (p. 12). Thus, the gap in research on teaching practices and how
teachers use technology to support inquiry warrants further investigation.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the teaching practices and the ways teachers
used technology to support inquiry in science classes. Although previous studies recognized the
importance of teachers’ roles in inquiry classes, few have examined the teachers’ role in
implementing and supporting technology-enhanced tools in the classroom (Kim et al., 2007).
Previous research provides little information with regard to teacher facilitation of learner-
centered inquiry in classrooms equipped with technology (Kim et al., 2007). This study sought to
help close the gap in research on teaching practices and how teachers use technology to support
scientific inquiry.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

17

Research Question
This study sought to answer the research question: What teaching practices, with
emphasis on how technology is used, do teachers employ to support inquiry in science classes?
Significance of the Study
This study explored the teaching practices and the ways teachers used technology to
support inquiry in science classes. The findings of this study contribute to the limited literature
and empirical research that exist with regard to understanding the teaching practices and how
teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry. This study also contributes to the increased
need for understanding the role of technology in science teaching as we continue to move
forward in this technology-driven society. Finally, while this study may not be generalizable
given its case study design, its findings and implications through exploration of the teaching
practices and the ways teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry, provide valuable
insights for improving science education.
Methodology
This dissertation study aimed to examine the teaching practices and how teachers used
technology to support inquiry in science classes. It focused on the teaching practices and how
teachers used technology in the context of instructional delivery, inquiry process, contextualized
learning, and collaboration. These four thematic constructs emerged from the review of
literature, and influenced the conceptual framework and research design of this study. A
qualitative study employing a multi-case study methodology was conducted with data collected
from observations, interviews, and document collection (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009). This study
utilized the multiple case study method of examining two science teachers’ classes (one ninth
grade science class and one eighth grade science class) in two separate sites on the Island of
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

18

Oahu, Hawaii. The teachers served as the unit of analysis for each of the two case studies. In-
depth interviews with the teachers took place at the beginning and end of the study. Direct
observations took place in the classroom of the teacher participants, which consisted of 16 total
class observations where I was able to observe the teachers teach and behave within the
classroom learning environment context. Documentation served as a supplemental method of
data collection.
Assumptions
For the purpose of this study, two assumptions were made. First, it was assumed that the
responses gathered from the individual interviews with the teachers were truthful. Second, it was
assumed that the teaching practices and the teachers’ use of technology during the observation
period were typical on any given day outside of the days I observed.
Limitations
There were five limitations identified within this study. First, there was a limitation in the
generalizability of this study as I focused on only two science teachers, one middle and one high
school, who taught science classes. As a result, it was difficult to determine whether the findings
obtained from this study could be replicated in another science class setting. Second, the timeline
of the data collection was brief only spanning a few weeks versus a 9-month academic year.
Third, the qualitative nature of the study and the small number of teacher participants
interviewed provided only individual portraits that were, perhaps, unique to the selected science
classes and teachers. Further, the findings of this multi-case study may not be representative of
the entire population of middle and high school science teachers. Fourth, answers obtained from
the teacher participants could not be anticipated to agree with the questions asked within my own
instrumentation. Therefore, I could not fully guarantee that the answers obtained would address
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

19

the research question I had sought to address in this study. Finally, my own researcher bias
served as a limitation as the inferences I made from the observations and interview notes were
made from my own lens, and may not always align with what the participants were thinking.
Delimitations
There were four delimitations, or the characteristics that limited the scope of the study’s
inquiry as indicated by the researcher, within this study. The first involved class site selection as
I purposefully sampled the class sites for my multi-case study based on the criteria discussed in
my methodology in Chapter 3. The second involved participant selection because I focused my
unit of analysis on two teachers at the sites chosen for my case studies. The third delimitation
involved the timeline established for data collection where I spent a specific amount of time at
the selected class sites. Fourth, my instrumentation and measures for data collection and analysis,
such as interview protocols, were established by me and implemented by me.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides introduction,
background, and statement of the problem. The purpose and the research question of the study
will follow. The significance, methodology, assumptions, limitations, and delimitations of the
study will be provided subsequently.
Chapter 2 provides a literature review of the study. Chapter 2 reviews three bodies of
literature: effective general teaching practices, effective teaching practices in science, and
technology use in the classroom. I conclude the literature review with my conceptual framework,
which informs the research design and methodology that I will incorporate in answering my
research question.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

20

Chapter 3 presents the methodology encompassing research design, site selection criteria,
participant selection, data collection, data analysis, validity and reliability, and conclusion.
Chapter 4 presents the findings that emerged from class observations and teacher
interviews. In this chapter, the findings and themes will be analyzed and discussed as they relate
to the conceptual framework introduced in Chapter 2.
Lastly, Chapter 5 concludes the dissertation with a summary of the findings, and
implications and recommendations for practice, policy and future research.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

21

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
For this dissertation study, I asked the research question: What teaching practices, with
emphasis on how technology is used, do teachers employ to support inquiry in a science class?
To answer this question, I drew upon three bodies of literature: effective general teaching
practices, effective teaching practices in science, and technology use in the classroom. These
three bodies of literature provided insights into the role teaching practices and technology play in
supporting scientific inquiry.
First, I present relevant literature on effective general teaching practices. In this section, I
present literature on the characteristics of effective teaching practices. I then present literature on
instructional strategies based on effective instruction. I also present literature on teaching
standards for effective teaching. Lastly, I present literature on the teaching practices as they
relate to teaching responsibilities that have been researched, both empirically and theoretically,
as promoting improved learning.
Second, I present relevant literature on effective teaching practices in science. In this
section, I present literature on the teaching strategies for effective science teaching. I then present
literature on effective science instruction and its impact on student achievement. I also present
literature on science teaching standards and how they relate to effective science teaching.
Third, I present relevant literature on technology use in the classroom. In this section, I
present literature on the use of digital technologies in the classroom. I also present literature on
the availability of educational technology and its frequency of use among teachers in public
schools.
I conclude this chapter with a presentation of my conceptual framework that was
constructed based on the research literature on effective teaching practices and the teacher’s use
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

22

of technology. My conceptual framework informed the research design and methods that I used,
and served as research lens to answer the research question in this study.
Effective General Teaching Practices
Researchers in this area have sought to characterize general teaching practices that are
deemed effective. Therefore, I will organize my review of the literature associated with effective
general teaching practices into 4 sections. First, I present my review of the literature on the
characteristics of effective teaching practices. Second, I present literature on instructional
strategies based on effective instruction. Third, I present the literature on teaching standards for
effective teaching. Fourth, I present the relevant research on the teaching practices as they relate
to teaching responsibilities that have been researched empirically and theoretically as promoting
improved student learning.
Characteristics of Effective Teaching Practices
In attempting to characterize the features of effective general teaching practices, Stronge
(2002) describes the characteristics of effective teaching practices. Stronge (2002) reports that
some researchers characterize teacher effectiveness in terms of student achievement, while others
use high performance ratings from supervisors as well as comments from students,
administrators, and other stakeholders. Rather than look at external factors like school
demographics, district leadership, and state mandates, Stronge (2002) focuses on what teachers
can control such as their preparation, personality, and practices. In doing so, Stronge (2015)
suggests, in a later study, seven standards that represent the broad domains of a teacher’s practice
derived from research and theory on teaching:
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

23

1. Performance Standard 1: Professional Knowledge–The teacher demonstrates an
understanding of the curriculum, subject content, and the developmental needs of
students by providing relevant learning experiences.
2. Performance Standard 2: Instructional Planning–The teacher plans using the state’s
standards, the school’s curriculum, data, and engaging and appropriate strategies and
resources to meet the needs of all students.
3. Performance Standard 3: Instructional Delivery–The teacher uses a variety of
research-based instructional strategies relevant to the content area to engage students
in active learning, to promote key skills, and to meet individual learning needs.
4. Performance Standard 4: Assessment of/for Learning–The teacher systematically
gathers, analyzes, and uses relevant data to measure student progress, guide
instructional content and delivery methods, and provide timely feedback to students,
parents, and stakeholders.
5. Performance Standard 5: Learning Environment–The teacher uses resources,
routines, and procedures to provide a respectful, positive, safe, student-centered
environment that is conducive to learning.
6. Performance Standard 6: Professionalism–The teacher maintains a commitment to
professional ethics, collaborates and communicates appropriately, and takes
responsibility for personal professional growth that results in the enhancement of
student learning.
7. Performance Standard 7: Student Progress–The work of the teacher results in
acceptable, measurable, and appropriate student progress. (pp. 23-34)
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

24

These performance standards refer to the major duties performed by a teacher, and serve as tools
that can be selected and used by teachers, administrators, peer coaches, and others to focus on
improving teacher performance. Each of the 7 performance standards is supported by research.
Professional knowledge. Park, Jang, Chen, and Jung (2011) assert that an effective
teacher has a deep understanding of the facts, concepts, principles, methodology, and important
generalization of the subject area. Ball, Hoover, and Phelps (2008) state that an effective teacher
has solid content knowledge and such knowledge has positive associations with students’
learning at all grade levels. Weiss and Miller (2006) posit that an effective teacher is more likely
to ask higher-level questions, encourage students to explore a wide range of explanations, engage
students in inquiry-based learning and student-directed activities, due to the teacher’s strong
professional knowledge.
Instructional planning. Cotton (2000), Reed (2012), and others (cf., Zahorik, Halbach,
Ehrle, & Molnar, 2003) describe that an effective teacher systematically develops learning
objectives, questions, and activities that reflect various cognitive skills as appropriate for the
content and the students. Danielson (2007) and McEwan (2002) posit that an effective teacher
relates the current lesson to past and future lessons, and acknowledge the needs of the students
and the nature of what the teacher wants to teach. Haynie (2006) adds that an effective teacher
uses student assessment data in the instructional planning based on frequent assessments.
Instructional delivery. Tomlinson (2001) states that an effective teacher uses multiple
instructional strategies, materials, activities, and assessment approaches to meet students’ needs.
Guo, Tsai, Chang, and Huang (2007), and Walsh and Sattes (2005) argue that an effective
teacher uses multiple levels of questioning to stimulate the way students think and to monitor
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

25

student learning. Cotton (2000) adds that an effective teacher keeps students on task and
encourages them to actively integrate new information with prior learning and experience.
Assessment of/for learning. Marzano, Norford, Paynter, Pickering, and Gaddy (2001)
assert that an effective teacher offers regular, timely, and specific feedback that helps and guides
students to reach a different viewpoint. Hattie (2012) offers that an effective teacher provides
feedback that focuses on the task, product, and process. An effective teacher also empowers
students to take further actions instead of simply informing them whether their answer is right or
wrong. Gronlund (2006) states that an effective teacher analyzes student assessments to find out
the degree to which the intended learning outcomes align with the assessment results and student
understanding of the learning objectives.
Learning environment. Ludtke, Robitzsch, Trautwein, and Kunter (2009) and Stronge
(2007) assert that an effective teacher establishes and communicates the classroom expectations
and rules, keeps students on the learning task, monitors student behavior, and promotes respect
in all aspects of the classroom interactions. Cornelius-White (2007) and Hamre and Pianta
(2005) posit that an effective teacher creates teacher-student relationships that are embodied by
empathy, warmth, and genuineness. They add that an effective teacher creates teacher-student
relationships that adapt to individual and social differences (Cornelius-White, 2007; Hamre &
Pianta, 2005).
Professionalism. Cercone (2008) states that an effective teacher demonstrates a
commitment to continuous improvement and learning, and actively engages in self-directed
learning in a community with like professionals. Little (1993) asserts that an effective teacher
acts both individually and collectively to advance the teaching profession, and functions as a
well-informed critic of educational policies that impact student learners.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

26

Student progress. Ainsworth (2010) asserts that an effective teacher aligns intended
learning outcome, instruction, and assessment. Safer and Fleischman (2005) add that an effective
teacher monitors student progress regularly and systematically to use student performance data to
evaluate the effectiveness of the teacher’s teaching, consequently making more informed
instructional decisions.
Instructional Strategies Based on Effective Instruction
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) postulate that effective instruction involves three
related areas: the instructional strategies used by the teacher, the management techniques used by
the teacher, and the curriculum designed by the teacher. For the purpose of this study, I focus on
Marzano et al. (2001b) research encompassing the instructional strategies used by the teacher.
Marzano et al. (2001b) describe instructional strategies on effective instruction extracted from
the research base. They (2001b) assert that the categories of instructional strategies and the
corresponding indicators that affect student achievement, are as follows:
1. Identifying similarities and differences: classroom practice in identifying similarities
and differences through comparing, classifying, creating metaphors, and creating
analogies,
2. Summarizing and note taking: classroom practice in summarizing through the use of
“Rule-Based” strategy, summary frames, and reciprocal teaching; classroom practice
in note taking through the use of teacher-prepared notes, informal outline, webbing,
and combination of notes/techniques that employ both the informal outline and
webbing,
3. Reinforcing effort and providing recognition: classroom practice in reinforcing effort
by teaching about effort and keeping track of effort and achievement; classroom
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

27

practice in providing recognition through personalizing recognition, pause, prompt,
and praise; and concrete symbols of recognition,
4. Homework and practice: classroom practice in assigning homework includes
establishing and communicating a homework policy, designing homework
assignments that clearly articulate the purpose and outcome, and varying the
approaches to providing feedback. Classroom practice regarding practicing skills
involves designing practice assignments that focus on certain elements of a complex
skill or process, and planning time for students to increase their conceptual
understanding of skills or processes,
5. Nonlinguistic representations: classroom practice in nonlinguistic representation is
demonstrated through creating graphic organizers, making physical models,
generating mental pictures, drawing pictures and pictographs, and engaging in
kinesthetic activity,
6. Cooperative learning: classroom practice in cooperative learning is evidenced through
the use of a variety of criteria for grouping students; employment of different
cooperative learning groups (e.g., informal, formal, and base grouping); and
combining cooperative learning with other classroom structures,
7. Setting objectives and providing feedback: indicators of classroom practice in goal
setting include the use of contracts and specific but flexible goals; classroom practice
in providing feedback is demonstrated when the teacher uses criterion-referenced
feedback and rubric, and feedback for specific types of knowledge and skills,
8. Generating and testing hypothesis: classroom practice in generating and testing
hypothesis is demonstrated when the teacher uses a variety of structured tasks to
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

28

guide students through generating, testing, and explaining their hypothesis and
conclusion, and
9. Questions, cues, and advance organizers: classroom practice in cues and questions is
exhibited when the teacher uses explicit cues, questions that elicit inferences, and
analytic questions; classroom practice in advance organizers is demonstrated through
the use of expository, narrative, and graphic organizers. (pp. 13-111)
Marzano et al. (2001b) recommend that teachers use these strategies to guide classroom practice
in such a way to maximize the possibility of enhancing student achievement.
Standards for Effective Teaching
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). In 1987, the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) issued the policy statement, What Teachers
Should Know And Be Able To Do, which has served as a basis for all of the standards
development work NBPTS has conducted (NBPTS, 1987). Part of the mission of NBPTS (1987)
is to advance the quality of teaching and learning by maintaining high, rigorous standards for
what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do. The policy statement (NBPTS,
1987) describes NBPTS’ Five Core Propositions for Teaching as:
1. Teachers are committed to students and their learning.
2. Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.
3. Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.
4. Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.
5. Teachers are members of learning communities.
The five core propositions represent what all accomplished teachers demonstrate in their
expertise, commitment, and dedication to advance student achievement (NBPTS, 1987). The first
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

29

proposition involves teachers recognizing individual differences in their students and making the
necessary adjustments in their teaching practices accordingly. It also involves teachers
understanding how students develop and learn, teachers treating students equitably, and teachers
knowing that their mission transcends the cognitive development of their students. The second
proposition involves teachers appreciating how knowledge in their content discipline is created,
organized, and related to other subjects. The second proposition also involves teachers holding
specialized knowledge of the ways to convey a subject to students, as well as teachers generating
diverse paths to knowledge. The third proposition involves teachers utilizing different
approaches to meet their instructional goals, supporting student learning in a wide range of
settings and groups, valuing student engagement in class activities, regularly monitoring and
assessing student progress, and engaging students in the learning process (NBPTS, 1987). The
fourth proposition involves teachers overcoming the professional challenges in teaching, and
utilizing feedback and research to improve their practice, consequently positively impacting
student learning. The fifth proposition involves teachers collaborating with other professionals to
contribute to the ongoing school development and effectiveness, and working collaboratively
with families and the community as a whole (NBPTS, 1987).
Standards for Effective Pedagogy (SEP). In a related research, Tharp, Estrada, Dalton,
and Yamauchi (2000) have identified five teaching standards, the Standards for Effective
Pedagogy (SEP), which articulate generic principles of effective pedagogy. The SEP are
supported by research from the disciplines of sociocultural theory, cognitive science,
organizational theory, and critical theory, that are essential for improving the learning outcomes
for all students, especially those at risk of academic failure due to economic, linguistic, or
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

30

cultural factors (Tharp et al., 2000). In later studies, Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, and Tharp (2003),
and the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence (2004) describe the five SEP:
1. Standard I—Teachers and students producing together. Facilitate learning through
joint productive activity among teacher and students,
2. Standard II—Developing language and literacy across the curriculum. Develop
competence in the language and literacy of instruction across the curriculum,
3. Standard III—Making meaning; connecting school to students’ lives. Contextualize
teaching and curriculum in the experiences and skills of students’ homes and
communities,
4. Standard IV—Teaching complex thinking. Challenge students toward cognitive
complexity, and
5. Standard V—Teaching through conversation. Engage students through dialogue,
especially the instructional conversation.
Doherty et al. (2003) assert that these standards represent guiding principles for
instructional activities that encourage active and effective student learning. The first standard
involves facilitating learning through joint productive activity where both the teacher and
students work together on a common goal and have opportunities to discuss about their work.
The second standard involves developing language and literacy across the curriculum, which is
demonstrated by developing competence in the language and literacy of instruction as well as in
the academic disciplines through extended reading, writing, and speaking tasks. The third
standard involves contextualizing teaching based on the experiences and skills of students’
homes and communities. The fourth standard involves participating in challenging activities that
require the application of content knowledge to achieve an academic goal, with clear standards
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

31

and feedback on performance. The fifth standard involves teaching and promoting discourse
using planned, goal-directed instructional conversations between a teacher and a small group of
students (Doherty et al., 2003). The Center for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence
(2004) articulates that research shows a consistent relationship between the use of SEP and a
wide range of affective, behavioral, and cognitive indicators of improved student performance.
Framework for Teaching as it Relates to Teaching Practices
The Framework for Teaching (FFT) is a research-based protocol developed by education
expert Charlotte Danielson in 1996 (Danielson, 2007). FFT identifies the aspects of a teacher’s
responsibilities that have been documented through studies and theoretical research (Danielson,
2013). The research base for FFT came from three sources: the practices of experienced teachers,
the theory and data of experienced educational researchers, and the requirements developed by
state teacher licensing institutions. FFT serves as the overarching instruction framework model
that focuses the complex activity of teaching by defining four domains of teaching responsibility.
The four domains include: 1) planning and preparation, 2) classroom environment, 3) instruction,
and 4) professional responsibilities (Danielson, 2007, 2013). Danielson’s framework is divided
into 22 components that are grouped into these four domains of teaching responsibility (2007,
2013). Domains 1 and 4 involve aspects of the teaching profession that occur outside the
classroom, while Domains 2 and 3 relate to aspects that are directly observable in classroom
teaching (Danielson, 2007, 2013).
Domain 2 (Classroom Environment) has the following six components and corresponding
indicators (Danielson, 2013):
1. Creating an environment of respect and rapport: respectful talk, active listening, and
turn-taking; acknowledgement of students’ backgrounds and lives outside the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

32

classroom; body language indicative of warmth and caring shown by teacher and
students; physical proximity; and politeness and encouragement,
2. Establishing a culture for learning: belief in the value of what is being learned; high
expectations, supported through both verbal and nonverbal behaviors, for both
learning and participation; expectation of high-quality work on the part of students;
expectation and recognition of effort and persistence on the part of students; and high
expectations for expression and work products,
3. Managing classroom procedures: smooth functioning of all routines; little or no loss
of instructional time; students playing an important role in carrying out the routines;
and students knowing what to do, where to move,
4. Managing student behavior: clear standards of conduct, possibly posted, and possibly
referred to during a lesson; absence of acrimony between teacher and students
concerning behavior; teacher awareness of student conduct; preventive action when
needed by the teacher; absence of misbehavior; and reinforcement of positive
behavior, and
5. Organizing physical space: pleasant, inviting atmosphere; safe environment;
accessibility for all students; furniture arrangement suitable for the learning activities;
and effective use of physical resources, including computer technology, by both
teacher and students. (pp. 25-37)
Domain 3 (Instruction) has the following five components and corresponding indicators
(Danielson, 2013):
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

33

1. Communicating with students: clarity of lesson purpose; clear directions and
procedures specific to the lesson activities; absence of content errors and clear
explanations of concepts and strategies; and correct and imaginative use of language,
2. Using questioning and discussion techniques: questions of high cognitive challenge,
formulated by both students and teacher; questions with multiple correct answers or
multiple approaches, even when there is a single correct response; effective use of
student responses and ideas; discussion, with the teacher stepping out of the central,
mediating role; focus on the reasoning exhibited by students in discussion, both in
give-and-take with the teacher and with their classmates; and high levels of student
participation in discussion,
3. Engaging students in learning: student enthusiasm, interest, thinking, and problem
solving; learning tasks that require high-level student thinking and invite students to
explain their thinking; students highly motivated to work on all tasks and persistent
even when the tasks are challenging; students actively “working,” rather than
watching while their teacher “works;” and suitable pacing of the lesson: neither
dragged out nor rushed, with time for closure and student reflection,
4. Using assessment in instruction: the teacher paying close attention to evidence of
student understanding; the teacher posing specifically created questions to elicit
evidence of student understanding; the teacher circulating to monitor student learning
and to offer feedback; and students assessing their own work against established
criteria, and
5. Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness: incorporation of students’ interests and
daily events into a lesson; the teacher adjusting instruction in response to evidence of
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

34

students understanding (or lack of it); and the teacher seizing on a teachable moment.
(pp. 41-56)
Research shows that FFT is a validated instrument, which means, as studies suggest, that
teachers who receive higher ratings on their evaluation yield greater gains in student test scores
(Danielson, 2007, 2013).
Effective Teaching Practices in Science
I reviewed the research literature on effective general teaching practices in the previous
section of this chapter. In this section, I review the literature to gain insights into the way
teachers demonstrate effective teaching practices in science. The literature review on effective
general teaching practices as well as effective teaching practices in science helped construct the
conceptual framework needed to answer the research question.
Here, I organize my review of the research literature on effective teaching practices in
science into three sections. First, I provide literature on the teaching strategies for effective
science teaching. Second, I provide literature on effective science instruction and its impact on
student achievement. Third, I provide literature on science teaching standards and how they
relate to effective science teaching. The information presented in this section was critical in
conceptualizing the framework used in this study.
Teaching Strategies For Effective Science Teaching
The effect of specific science teaching strategies on student achievement. In an
attempt to determine the teaching strategies for effective science teaching, Schroeder, Scott,
Tolson, Huang, and Lee (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of research published from 1980 to
2004 on the effect of specific science teaching strategies on student achievement. The meta-
analysis addressed the question: “What teaching methodologies have been shown to improve
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

35

student achievement in science in the USA?” (Schroeder et al., p. 1441). In order to meet the
criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis study, the studies were required to have been carried
out in the United States (U.S.), been experimental or quasi-experimental, and must have
provided the effect size or statistics necessary to calculate effect size. Sixty-one studies met the
criteria for further investigation. During analysis of the studies, the following 8 categories of
teaching strategies and the corresponding effect sizes, shown in parenthesis, were revealed
(Schroeder et al., 2007):
1. Enhanced context strategies (1.48)
2. Collaborative learning strategies (0.96)
3. Questioning strategies (0.74)
4. Inquiry strategies (0.65)
5. Manipulation strategies (0.57)
6. Assessment strategies (0.51)
7. Instructional technology strategies (0.48)
8. Enhanced material strategies (0.29)
Enhanced context strategies. Schroeder and others (2007) claim that teachers can make
learning relevant to students by teaching material in the context of real-world applications.
Enhanced context strategies allow for relating topics to previous experiences or learning and
engaging students’ interest. Examples include using problem-based learning, taking field trips,
using the schoolyard for lessons, and encouraging reflection.
Collaborative learning strategies. Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1991) define
cooperative learning as a form of instruction that involves students working in teams to
accomplish a common goal that includes the following elements: positive interdependence;
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

36

individual accountability; face-to-face promotive interaction; appropriate use of collaborative
skills; and group processing. When using collaborative learning strategies, teachers arrange
students in flexible groups or teams to work on different activities such as conducting lab
exercises, inquiry projects, and discussions (Schroeder et al., 2007).
Questioning strategies. Fusco (2012) asserts that discussion provides students
opportunities to become reflective and responsible thinkers. It is the teachers’ responsibility to
provide students with a solid cognitive foundation that promotes critical thinking and problem
solving skills. Schroeder and others (2007) provide examples by which teachers demonstrate
questioning strategies: teachers modify timing, positioning, or cognitive levels of questions by
increasing wait time, adding pauses at key student-response points, including more high-
cognitive-level questions, stopping visual media at key points and asking questions, and posing
comprehension questions to students at the start of a lesson or assignment.
Inquiry strategies. Multiple studies propose new approaches that feature inquiry as
essential for student learning (Marx et al., 2004). These approaches assume that students need to
find answers and solutions to real problems by asking and refining questions; designing and
conducting investigations; collecting and analyzing data; making interpretations, synthesizing
explanations, and drawing conclusions; and reporting findings (Krajcik, Blumenfield, Marx, &
Soloway, 2000; Linn et al., 2003; Songer et al., 2003). When applying inquiry strategies,
Schroeder and others (2007) assert that teachers use student-centered instruction that is less step-
by-step and teacher-directed than traditional instruction, and students answer scientific research
questions by analyzing data such as using guided or facilitated inquiry activities and laboratory
inquiries.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

37

Manipulation strategies. Teachers provide students with opportunities to work or
practice with physical objects such as developing skills using manipulatives or apparatus,
drawing or creating something (Schroeder et al., 2007).
Assessment strategies. Teachers modify the frequency, purpose, or cognitive levels of
testing or evaluation such as providing immediate or explanatory feedback, using diagnostic
testing, formative testing, re-testing, and testing for mastery (Schroeder et al., 2007).
Instructional technology strategies. Teachers use technology to enhance instruction such
as using computers for simulations, modeling abstract concepts and collecting data, showing
videos to focus on a concept, and using photos or diagrams (Schroeder et al., 2007).
Enhanced material strategies. Examples of enhanced material strategies include
modifying instructional materials and resources such as rewriting or annotating text materials,
tape-recording directions, and simplifying laboratory apparatus (Schroeder et al., 2007).
Schroeder and others (2007) assert that their study has generated empirical evidence supporting
the effectiveness of alternative teaching strategies in science, and that teachers must employ the
eight strategies that have been shown to be effective in improving student achievement. They
suggest that the eight categories of science teaching strategies may be considered “principles” for
effective science teaching.
Dimensions and themes of effective teaching in science. Another research sought out
the dimensions and themes of effective teaching in science. In a two-phase study, Bartholomew,
Osborne, and Ratcliffe (2004) first identified nine themes capturing some of the principles they
argued constituted “ideas-about-science” (p. 656). The nine themes articulated by Bartholomew
and others (2004) are described as follows:
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

38

1. Scientific methods and critical testing: Students should be taught that science uses the
experimental method to test ideas and should be made clear that the outcome of a
single experiment is rarely adequate to establish a knowledge claim.
2. Science and certainty: Students should understand why much scientific knowledge is
well established and beyond reasonable doubt, and why other scientific knowledge is
not. Students should be taught and explained that current scientific knowledge may be
subject to change in the future based on new evidence or new interpretation of old
evidence.
3. Diversity of scientific thinking: Students should be taught that science utilizes a range
of methods and approaches, and that there is no single scientific method or approach.
4. Hypothesis and prediction: Students should be taught that hypotheses and predictions
about natural phenomena are developed, and these are important in the development
of new knowledge claims.
5. Historical development of scientific knowledge: Students should be taught important
historical background to the development of critical scientific knowledge.
6. Creativity: Students should be taught and explained that science involves creativity
and imagination, and that some scientific ideas are tremendous intellectual
achievements.
7. Science and questioning: Students should be taught that an important aspect of the
work involving scientific investigation is the continual and cyclical process of asking
questions and seeking answers, which then gives rise to new questions. This process
results in the emergence of new scientific theories, methods, approaches, and
techniques that are then tested empirically.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

39

8. Analysis and interpretation of data: Students should be taught that the practice of
science necessitates skillful analysis and data interpretation. Scientific knowledge
claims do not emerge simply from the data but through a system of interpretation and
theory building that may require advanced skills. It is possible for stakeholders to
come to varying interpretations of the same data, and therefore, to disagree.
9. Cooperation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge: Students
should be taught that scientific work is a collaborative and competitive process. New
knowledge claims are generally shared and, to be accepted by the community, must
endure a process of critical and analytical peer review. (pp. 657-658)
Bartholomew et al. (2004) worked with a group of 11 teachers from the London (United
Kingdom) area over a period of a year to identify five critical dimensions that they concluded
determined a teacher’s ability to teach effectively about science. The teacher participants, who
taught science in a mix of elementary, junior high, and high schools, were asked to develop and
implement a minimum of eight lessons across two terms on “ideas-about-science,” which
incorporated aspects of the nine themes emerging from Phase 1 of the study. From the data,
Bartholomew and others (2004) identified five main factors that influenced the teachers’
practices when teaching about science—factors that they described as a set of five dimensions of
practice:
1. Dimension 1: Teachers’ knowledge and understanding of the nature of science
2. Dimension 2: Teachers’ conception of their own role
3. Dimension 3: Teachers’ use of discourse
4. Dimension 4: Teachers’ conception of learning goals
5. Dimension 5: The nature of classroom activities
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

40

Bartholomew and others (2004) propose that while these dimensions are neither mutually
independent nor equally important, they serve as an essential analytical tool for evaluating and
explaining the success that individual teachers of science have when challenged with teaching
aspects about science.
Effective Science Instruction and Student Achievement
In this section, I present research on effective science instruction and its relation to
student achievement. Wood, Lawrenz, Huffman, and Schultz (2006), Johnson, Kahle, and Fargo
(2007), and Rivet and Krajcik (2008) argue that few research studies have determined the
relationship between the use of effective science instruction and school level achievement on
state standardized assessments. To help close the gap in this research area, Johnson, Zhang, and
Kahle (2012) investigated the impact of effective science instruction on performance on high-
stakes high school graduation assessments in science. In the subsequent sections, I expand on
Johnson et al. (2012) research.
Johnson and others (2012) examined the performance of 10th graders on the Ohio
Graduation Test (OGT) with regard to their middle school instructional environments. All
students were required to successfully pass the OGT test in order to graduate from high school in
Ohio. Their (2012) study group cohort comprised of 176 students who were in the sixth grade in
2002, and 11 certified middle school science teachers. In their (2012) study, effective instruction
was characterized using the Local Systemic Change Classroom Observation Protocol (LSCCOP)
rubric (Horizon Research, Inc., 1999). All teacher participants were observed and scored using
the LSCCOP rubric to determine teacher effectiveness and the degree of standards-based
instruction in four areas: design of lesson, implementation of lesson, science content of lesson,
and classroom culture (Johnson et al., 2012).
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

41

The study of Johnson et al. (2012) showed a significant difference in student science
achievement for students who participated in effective classrooms compared to those who had
less or no exposure. The data showed that 32% (n = 57) of the 176 participating students did not
have an effective middle school teacher. In contrast, 47% (n = 82), 18% (n = 31), and 3% (n = 6)
of the participating students had one effective teacher, two effective teachers, and three effective
teachers, respectively. All students who had one or more effective teachers in middle school
(68% of the entire study group; n = 119) passed the science component of the OGT. Students
who had no effective science teacher and failed the science component of the test equated to 11%
(n = 19). In contrast, 89% of the entire study group (n = 157), including all students with an
effective teacher, passed the OGT. Twenty one percent of the entire study group (n = 38) who
had no effective science teacher passed the science component of OGT (Johnson et al., 2012).
Johnson and others (2012) assert, based on this study, that exposure to effective science
teachers in middle school is positively associated with better student outcomes in the 10th grade,
which can be translated as “the more exposure, the better the performance” (p. 9). They (2012)
also assert that students who were exposed to more student-centered environments that
contextualized science in the real world, outperformed the other students. Johnson and others
(2012) argue that this study provides strong findings to support authentic science teaching to
enhance long-term retention of learning and performance on state-mandated assessments. They
(2012) posit that effective science instruction in middle school may benefit future science
learning in high school coursework.
Science Teaching Standards and Effective Science Teaching
National Science Education Standards. In this section, I present research on science
teaching standards and their relation to effective science teaching. The NRC (1996) asserts that
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

42

the science teaching standards describe what teachers of science at all grade levels should
understand and be able to do. In the vision of science education described by the National
Science Education Standards, effective teachers of science create a learning environment where
both the teachers and students work collaboratively as active learners (NRC, 1996). To teach
science as described by the Standards, the NRC (1996) recommends that teachers must possess
theoretical and practical knowledge and abilities about science, learning, and science teaching.
The science teaching standards focus on the qualities that are most closely related to science
teaching and with the vision of science education portrayed in the Standards. The six science
teaching standards and the description of each are as follows (NRC, 1996):
1. Teaching Standard A: Teachers of science plan an inquiry-based science program for
their students. In doing this, teachers develop a framework of short- and long-term
goals for students; select science content, modify and design curricula by considering
the nature of students who will be learning the science; select teaching and
assessment strategies that support the development of students with various learning
needs; and work collaboratively with colleagues within and across disciplines and
grade levels.
2. Teaching Standard B: Teachers of science guide and facilitate learning. In doing so,
teachers support inquiries while working with students; promote productive discourse
among students about scientific ideas; challenge students to be accountable for their
own learning; acknowledge student diversity and encourage all students to participate
actively in science learning; and demonstrate and encourage the skills of scientific
inquiry.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

43

3. Teaching Standard C: Teachers of science engage in ongoing assessments of their
teaching and of student learning. In doing this, teachers utilize various methods and
collect data about student understanding and progress; analyze and use assessment
data to guide teaching; guide students when conducting self-assessments; analyze and
use student data as well as interactions with colleagues to reflect on and improve
teaching practice; and report student progress and achievement to all stakeholders.
4. Teaching Standard D: Teachers of science design and manage learning environments
that provide students with the time, space, and resources needed for learning science.
In doing this, teachers provide time and opportunities so students are able to engage
in extended investigations; ensure a safe working and learning environment; provide
science tools, materials, and technological resources accessible to students; identify
and use appropriate resources outside the school; and involve students in designing
the learning environment.
5. Teaching Standard E: Teachers of science create communities of science learners that
emulate the intellectual rigor of scientific inquiry and the attitudes and social values
promotive to science learning. In doing so, teachers enact and encourage respect for
the various ideas, skills, and experiences of all students; allow students to share their
work and demand students to be accountable for the learning of all community
members; foster collaboration among students; encourage ongoing formal and
informal discussion based on a shared understanding of rules of scientific discourse;
and demonstrate the necessary skills, attitudes, and values of scientific inquiry.
6. Teaching Standard F: Teachers of science actively engage in the ongoing planning
and development of the school science program. In doing so, teachers develop and
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

44

foster the school science program; participate and contribute to the decision-making
processes that involve time and resources allocation involving the science program;
and actively engage in implementing professional development approaches for
science teachers and staff. (pp. 30-51)
The six science teaching standards and other science education standards (not described here)
collectively constitute the National Science Education Standards; they serve as criteria to
evaluate progress toward a national vision of learning and teaching science that promotes
excellence (NRC, 1996). The NRC (1996) suggests that implementation of the Standards will
promote the best practices of effective teachers and provide them the support they deserve.
Effective science teaching in Australian schools. In this section, I discuss three key
Australian research documents that have identified characteristics of effective science teaching in
Australian schools. The characterization of effective science teaching is based on three seminal
Australian research and professional documents: the National Review into the Status and Quality
of Science Teaching and Learning in Australian Schools (Goodrum, Rennie, & Hackling, 2001),
the National Professional Standards for Highly Accomplished Teachers of Science (Australian
Science Teachers Association, 2002), and the School Innovation in Science (SIS) Project (Tytler,
2002).
In the first document, Goodrum et al. (2001) developed ideal and actual depictions of
science education in the National Review into the Status and Quality of Science Teaching and
Learning in Australian Schools. Nine themes emerged from their research of the literature,
curriculum documents, and from focus group meetings with teachers and curriculum experts.
The nine themes are described as follows (Goodrum et al., 2001):
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

45

1. The science curriculum is relevant to the needs, concerns and personal experience of
students.
2. Teaching and learning of science is centered on inquiry. Students investigate,
construct and test ideas and explanations about the natural world.
3. Assessment serves the purpose of learning and is consistent with and complementary
to good teaching.
4. The teaching-learning environment is characterized by enjoyment, fulfillment,
ownership of and engagement in learning, and mutual respect between the teacher
and students.
5. Teachers are life-long learners who are supported, nurtured and resourced to build the
understandings and competencies required of contemporary best practice.
6. Teachers of science have a recognized career path based on sound professional
standards endorsed by the profession.
7. Excellent facilities, equipment and resources support teaching and learning.
8. Class sizes make it possible to employ a range of teaching strategies and provide
opportunities for the teacher to get to know each child as a learner and give feedback
to individuals.
9. Science and science education are valued by the community, have high priority in the
school curriculum, and science teaching is perceived as exciting and valuable,
contributing significantly to the development of persons and to the economic and
social well-being of the nation. (p. vii)
In the second document, the Australian Science Teachers Association (2002) describes
the professional knowledge, practice and attributes of highly accomplished teachers in their
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

46

publication of the National Professional Standards for Highly Accomplished Teachers of
Science. The Standards state that teachers need a rich knowledge of science, curriculum,
teaching, learning and assessment, and of their students. Gess-Newsome (1999) asserts that
teachers are able to transform these components of knowledge into the pedagogical content
knowledge that permits them to make subject knowledge understandable to their students. The
standards involving professional practice for highly accomplished teachers include the following
statements (Australian Science Teachers Association, 2002):
1. They design coherent learning programs appropriate for their students’ needs and
interests.
2. They create and maintain intellectually challenging, emotionally supportive and
physically safe learning environments.
3. They engage students in generating, constructing and testing scientific knowledge by
collecting, analyzing and evaluating evidence.
4. They continually look for and implement ways to extend students’ understanding of
the major ideas of science.
5. They develop in students the confidence and ability to use scientific knowledge and
processes to make informed decisions.
6. They use diverse strategies, coherent with learning goals, to determine and assess
students’ learning and provide effective feedback. (p. 3)
In the third document, the School Innovation in Science (SIS) Project, Tytler (2002)
characterizes the components of effective science teaching that effectively support student
learning and engagement in science. Tytler (2002) describes the components as:
1. Students are encouraged to actively engage with ideas and evidence.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

47

2. Students are challenged to develop meaningful understandings.
3. Science is linked with students’ lives and interests.
4. Students’ individual learning needs and preferences are catered for.
5. Assessment is embedded in the science learning strategy.
6. The nature of science is represented in its different aspects.
7. The classroom is linked with the broader community.
8. Learning technologies are exploited for the learning potentialities. (p. 9)
The frameworks that these 3 seminal studies provide are useful tools in better
understanding the different features of effective science teaching. Hackling and Prain (2005)
analyzed these three seminal documents and identified a strong convergence around six
characteristics of effective science teaching (p. 19):
1. Students experience a curriculum that is relevant to their lives and interests within an
emotionally supportive and physically safe learning environment.
2. Classroom science is linked with the broader community.
3. Students are actively engaged with inquiry, ideas and evidence.
4. Students are challenged to develop and extend meaningful conceptual understandings.
5. Assessment facilitates learning and focuses on outcomes that contribute to scientific
literacy.
6. Information and communication technologies are exploited to enhance learning of
science.
The literature review on effective teaching practices in science presented important
information allowing me to understand the science teaching strategies deemed effective for
science teaching based on research and theory. This section also provided relevant literature on
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

48

effective science instruction and its impact on student achievement. I then provided literature on
science teaching standards and how they relate to effective science teaching. The literature
presented in this section is important, but not sufficient, in the construction of the conceptual
framework. To create the appropriate conceptual framework and answer the research question, I
must also review the literature on the technology use in the classroom. I turn to the next body of
literature to gain a better understanding of the use of technology in the classroom.
Technology Use in the Classroom
In this section, I provide literature on the technology use in the classroom. The literature
presented in the previous sections was important, but not sufficient, in the construction of the
conceptual framework. To create the appropriate conceptual framework and answer the research
question in this study, I review the literature on the teacher’s use of technology in the classroom.
First I provide relevant literature on the use of digital technologies in the classroom. Second, I
provide relevant literature on the availability of educational technology and its frequency of use
among teachers in public elementary and secondary schools.
Use of Digital Technologies in the Classroom
In this section, I present relevant literature on the use of digital technologies in the
classroom. Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, and Friedrich (2013) investigated the use of digital tools in
the classroom. They (2013) explored the teachers’ assessment of students’ research and writing
habits, the effects of digital technologies on their students, and the extent to which teachers
integrate digital technologies into classroom pedagogy. Purcell et al. (2013) propose that the
extent to which teachers use, understand, and are critical of or optimistic about technology tools,
shape how often and how effectively they use digital instruments in their classrooms. Although
Purcell et al. (2013) study has three separate reports, this section focuses only on the second
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

49

report, Report Two, as it is the most directly relevant to this dissertation. Report Two
investigated the following (Purcell et al., 2013):
1. Teachers’ personal use of and attitudes toward different digital technologies
2. Whether and how new technologies enable and enhance teacher professional
development and collaboration
3. The different ways digital technologies are being incorporated into classroom
pedagogy
4. School policy and resource issues affecting teachers’ abilities to incorporate new
technologies into their classrooms
5. How teachers experience and manage digital access issues among their students (p.
12)
Purcell et al. (2013) study involved 2,462 middle and high school teachers from the U.S.,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Of these, 1,750 of the teachers were drawn from a
sample of Advanced Placement (AP) high school teachers, whereas the remaining 712 were from
a sample of National Writing Project (NWP) teachers. In their (Purcell et al., 2013) study, the
main findings of the online survey were complemented by data from a series of online and in-
person focus groups involving middle and high school teachers and students in grades 9-12. Data
collection for this study was conducted in two phases. In phase 1, focus groups were conducted.
The findings of the focus group were then used in the development of a 30-minute online survey,
which was used in phase 2 of the study involving a national sample of middle and high school
AP and NWP teachers (Purcell et al., 2013).
Digital devices that teachers use in the classroom. The results of Purcell et al. (2013)
study show that laptops and desktop computers, and the projectors connected to these digital
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

50

tools, are the most widely used technological tools by AP and NWP teachers and students in the
middle and high school classrooms. Also, their (Purcell et al., 2013) study shows that 73% of the
teacher participants revealed that they and/or their students used cell phones/smartphones as a
learning device in the classroom or to complete the learning assignments (Table 1). On the other
hand, their (Purcell et al., 2013) study shows that e-book readers and tablet computers were the
least used technological tools by the teacher and student participants.
Table 1
Digital Devices AP and NWP Teachers are Using in Their Classrooms (Purcell et al., 2013; p.
35)
Type of Digital Tool Percent (%) of AP and NWP Teachers
Who Say They and/or Their Students Use
The Digital Tools in the Classroom or in
Completing Assignments
A projector that is connected to a laptop or
desktop computer or other digital device
97
A computer lab or computer workstation
devoted to student computer use
96
A cell phone and/or a smartphone 73
A computer/laptop car available at school 71
A digital camera other than a cell phone 67
A digital video recorder other than a cell
phone
55
An interactive whiteboard 52
An e-book reader 45
A tablet computer 43

Activities that teachers engage their students online using digital tools. The results of
Purcell et al. (2013) study show that students used digital tools to conduct research, download
and submit assignments, edit work, and collaborate with one another. Their (Purcell et al., 2013)
study shows that 95% of the AP and NWP teacher participants revealed that their students used
technological tools to engage in conducting research or searching for information online (Table
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

51

2). Their (Purcell et al., 2013) study also shows that the Internet and digital tools were used often
by teachers for the purposes of having their students access/download (79%) and turn in (76%)
assignments online (Table 2). On the other hand, their (Purcell et al., 2013) study shows that, at
the time when data was collected, only 29% of the teacher participants had their students use
collaborative web-based tools to edit or provide feedback to other students (Table 2).
Meanwhile, only 22% of the teacher participants had their students post their work online using
digital tools (Table 2).
Table 2
Educational Activity/Task AP and NWP Teachers Have Students Do Online (Purcell et al., 2013;
p. 37)
Educational Activity/Task Percent (%) of AP and NWP Teachers
Who Say They Have Students Do the
Educational Activity/Task
Do research or search for information
online
95
Access or download assignments from an
online site
79
Submit assignments online 76
Develop, share or post their work on a
website, wiki or blog
40
Participate in online discussions 39
Edit or revise student’s own work using a
collaborative web-based tool such as
GoogleDocs
36
Edit other students’dwork or give other
feedback using a collaborative web-based
tool such as GoogleDocs
29
Post their own work online where people
other than their classmates or teachers can
see it
22

Teachers use the Internet regularly to support their teaching. The results of Purcell et
al. (2013) study show that most AP and NWP teacher participants utilized the Internet on a
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

52

weekly basis to find resources for creating lesson plans, remained updated with research and
developments in their field, and looked for material that would engage their students. Their
(Purcell et al., 2013) study shows that 84% of the teacher participants utilized the Internet at least
weekly to find content that would engage their students (Table 3). Moreover, 80% of the teacher
participants utilized the Internet to help them create lesson plans (Table 3). However, only 45%
of the teacher participants revealed utilizing the Internet to interact online with other teachers to
share advice on managing classroom issues (Table 3).
Table 3
Percent and Frequency of AP and NWP Teachers Involved in Various Online Teaching-Related
Tasks (Purcell et al., 2013; p. 54)
Teaching-
related Tasks
Percent of AP and NWP Teachers (%)
Daily At least once a
week
At least once a
month
Less often
Receive email
alerts or online
newsletters that
follow
developments
in the teacher’s
field
52 28 12 8
Look online for
content or
material that
will engage
students
45 39 12 3
Look for
material online
to help create
lesson plans
36 44 14 6
Interact online
with other
teachers to
share advice on
handling
classroom
issues
22 23 20 34
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

53

Look online for
the latest
research in the
teacher’s field
or the subject
he/she teaches
22 35 27 16
Use a social
networking site
to exchange
ideas with other
teachers
8 10 10 71

Availability and Frequency of Use of Educational Technology Among Teachers in Public
Schools
In this section, I present literature on the availability and use of educational technology
among teachers in public schools. The U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE), National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and Institute of Education Sciences (IES), performed a
study investigating the availability and use of educational technology in public schools (Gray,
Thomas, & Lewis, 2010). The study gathered data from districts, schools, and teachers across the
nation (Gray et al., 2010).
In the study (Gray et al., 2010), the U.S. DOE asked NCES to conduct a survey of public
schools to track access to information technology in schools and classrooms. NCES used its Fast
Response Survey System (FRSS), a survey system designed to collect small amounts of issue-
oriented data from a nationally representative sample of districts, schools, or teachers with
minimal impact on respondents and within a relatively short period of time. The sample for the
FRSS 2009 teacher survey on educational technology was comprised of 4,133 teachers from 50
states and the District of Columbia public schools. The selection of teachers included two stages
(Gray et al., 2010).
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

54

The first stage involved a nationally representative sample of 2,005 regular U.S. public
schools selected from the 2005-06 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe
file, which was the most current file available at the time of study. For the study, the sampling
frame included 85,719 regular schools. For the second stage, a nationally representative sample
of teachers was selected from lists furnished by participating schools. Excluded from the
sampling frame in the second stage were school administrators, counselors, advisors; substitute
teachers, part-time teachers, and pre-school teachers; and other teachers who taught only
physical education classes. It was noted in the study that an average of two to three teachers were
randomly selected from each participating schools at rates that differed depending on the
instructional level of the school (Gray et al., 2010).
Key findings on teachers’ use of educational technology in public schools during the
winter and spring of 2009 related to the number of computers located in each teacher’s
classrooms every day and the number brought into the classroom, Internet access availability for
computers, availability and frequency of use for computers and other technology during
instructional time (Gray et al., 2010).
With respect to the availability of computers and Internet access, teachers offered insights
into the extent to which they had computers located in their classroom, the student to computer
ratio, and whether the computers had Internet connectivity (Gray et al., 2010). Ninety-seven
percent of teachers indicated that they had one or more computers in the classroom every day.
On the other hand 54% of teachers indicated that they could bring computers into the classroom
(Gray et al., 2010; p. 5). They also indicated the ratio of students to computers in the classroom
every day (5.3 to 1). Survey results revealed that the Internet was available in 93% of the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

55

computers located in the classroom and for 96% of the computers that could be brought into the
classroom (Gray et al., 2010).
In the subsequent sections, I expand on the following topics that were covered in the
teacher survey (Gray et al., 2010):
1. Frequency and availability of use for computers and other technology devices during
instructional time.
2. Availability and frequency that teachers use systems on the school or district network
for various activities.
3. Remote access (e.g., access from home) for teachers to use various school or district
computer applications or data.
4. Types of software and Internet sites used by teachers for classroom preparation,
instruction, and administrative tasks.
5. Students’ use of educational technology during classes. (p. 1)
Frequency and availability of use for computers and other technology devices
during instructional time. Forty-percent of teachers reported that they or their students often
used computers in the classroom during instructional time, or sometimes (29%). In contrast, 29%
of teachers reported that they or their students often used computers in other places in the school
during instructional time, or sometimes (43%) (Gray et al., 2010; p. 6). The study also shows that
teachers had the following technology devices either available as needed or in the classroom on a
daily basis: LCD (liquid crystal display) or DLP (digital light processing) projectors (36% and
48%, respectively), digital cameras (64% and 14%, respectively), and interactive whiteboards
(28% and 23%, respectively). It was also reported that of the teachers with the technology tool
available, the percentage who used it sometimes or often for instructional purposes was 72% for
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

56

LCD or DLP projectors, 49% for digital cameras, and 57% for interactive whiteboards (Gray et
al., 2010, pp. 7-8).
Availability and frequency that teachers use systems on the school or district
network for various activities. Teachers acknowledged that a system on their school or district
network was available for entering or viewing the following: grades, attendance records, and
results of student assessments (94%, 93%, and 90%, respectively). Of the teachers with one of
these systems available, the percentage using it sometimes or often was as follows: 92%, 90%,
and 75%, for grades, attendance records, and student assessments, respectively (Gray et al.,
2010, p. 9).
Remote access for teachers to use various school or district computer applications or
data. The study shows that 97% of teachers reported having remote access to school email, and
of these teachers, 85% utilized this remote access sometimes or often. Eighty-one percent of
teachers reported having remote access to student data, and of these teachers, 61% utilized this
type of access sometimes or often (Gray et al., 2010, p. 10).
Types of software and Internet sites used by teachers for classroom preparation,
instruction, and administrative tasks. The study shows that teachers sometimes or often
utilized the following technological tools for instructional or administrative purposes: word
processing software (96%), the Internet (94%), software for managing student records (80%),
software for making presentations (63%), and spreadsheets and graphing programs (61%) (Gray
et al., 2010, pp. 11-12).
Students’ use of educational technology during classes. For schools with a low poverty
concentration level (the percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch is less than
35%), the percentage of teachers who reported their students used educational technology
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

57

sometimes or often during classes is as follows: to work on written text (66%), to learn or
practice basic skills (61%), and to develop and present multimedia presentations (47%). On the
other hand, the percentage of teachers for schools with a high poverty concentration level (the
percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch is 75% or more) is as follows: to
work on written text (56%), to learn or practice basic skills (83%), and to develop and present
multimedia presentations (36%). It is important to note that the percentages are based on the
teachers reporting that the task applied to their students (Gray et al., 2010, pp. 13-14).
The literature presented in this section provided relevant information on the use of digital
technologies in the classroom. This section also provided relevant information on the availability
of educational technology and its frequency of use among teachers in public elementary and
secondary schools. The literature presented in this section provided insights and critical
information necessary to construct the conceptual framework and answer the research question in
this study. I conclude this chapter in the next section by highlighting the major themes presented
in the literature review and their relevance in the construction of my conceptual framework.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

58

Conceptual Framework
In this section, I discuss the components, how I constructed, and the assertions I made in
my conceptual framework.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework model. The conceptual framework used in this study was
constructed based on the research literature on effective teaching practices and the technology
use in the classroom. I assert that the four constructs found within the intersection of the three
domains support the students’ scientific inquiry in the context of a classroom environment.
I reviewed the literature on effective general teaching practices, effective teaching
practices in science, and the technology use in the classroom, to construct my conceptual
framework. These three bodies of literature were discussed individually in the previous section
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

59

of this chapter. In this study, I termed each of the bodies of literature domain. I then enumerated
the characteristics of effective teaching practices as well as the teacher’s use of technology found
within each domain and termed them elements. After enumerating the elements found in each
domain, I aggregated the elements based on the similarities of their characteristics and termed
these aggregates constructs. The constructs were themes that emerged after reviewing the
literature. For the purpose of this study, I focused on the constructs found within the intersection
of the three domains. These thematic constructs include instructional delivery, inquiry process,
contextualized learning, and collaboration. In this study, I assert that the four constructs found
within the intersection of the three domains support the students’ scientific inquiry in the context
of a classroom environment. The double-arrows represent my assertion that the four constructs
are linked and related to each other in some ways when supporting scientific inquiry. The
conceptual framework model, however, does not indicate causation or correlation of the
components. Rather, this study examined the ways the four emergent thematic constructs
supported scientific inquiry in the classroom. In the subsequent sections, I discuss how I
conceptualized the four constructs: instructional delivery, inquiry process, contextualized
learning, and collaboration.
Instructional Delivery
To conceptualize the ways a teacher demonstrated instructional delivery in his or her
teaching practices, I drew on the work of Stronge (2015), Marzano et al. (2001b), National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) (1987), Tharp et al. (2000), Danielson (2013),
Schroeder et al. (2007), Bartholomew et al. (2004), National Research Council (NRC) (1996),
Hackling and Prain (2005), Purcell et al. (2013), and Gray et al. (2010). I defined instructional
delivery as manipulation and instructional technology strategies that provide students with the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

60

time, routines, and resources to support productive learning of science with opportunities to
interpret and construct multimodal representations.
Inquiry Process
To conceptualize the ways a teacher demonstrated inquiry process in his or her teaching
practices, I drew on the work of Stronge (2015), Marzano et al. (2001b), NBPTS (1987), Tharp
et al. (2000), Danielson (2013), Schroeder et al. (2007), Bartholomew et al. (2004), NRC (1996),
Hackling and Prain (2005), Purcell et al. (2013), and Gray et al. (2010). I offered that teachers
who engaged their students in the inquiry process using technology guided and facilitated their
students’ complex thinking using technology to encourage students to actively engage with
questioning, hypothesis, ideas, evidence, and scientific process.
Contextualized Learning
To conceptualize the ways a teacher demonstrated contextualized learning in his or her
teaching practices, I drew on the work of Stronge (2015), Marzano et al. (2001b), NBPTS
(1987), Tharp et al. (2000), Danielson (2013), Schroeder et al. (2007), Bartholomew et al.
(2004), NRC (1996), Hackling and Prain (2005), Purcell et al. (2013), and Gray et al. (2010). I
offered that contextualized learning took place when classroom science is linked with the
broader community to make meaning of and experience a curriculum that is relevant to students’
lives and interests using technology that helps students experience the world beyond their own
context.
Collaboration
To conceptualize the ways a teacher demonstrated collaboration in his or her teaching
practices, I drew on the work of Stronge (2015), Marzano et al. (2001b), NBPTS (1987), Tharp
et al. (2000), Danielson (2013), Schroeder et al. (2007), Bartholomew et al. (2004), NRC (1996),
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

61

Hackling and Prain (2005), Purcell et al. (2013), and Gray et al. (2010). I defined collaboration
as teachers and students cooperating and producing together in the development of scientific
knowledge using technology to facilitate interaction and exchange of ideas in a classroom.
Summary
My conceptual framework was created based on the literature on effective general
teaching practices, effective teaching practices in science, and the technology use in the
classroom. The purpose of this study was to examine the intersection of effective teaching
practices and how teachers used technology to support scientific inquiry. For the purpose of this
study, I focused on the emergent thematic constructs found within the intersection of the
teaching practices and the teacher’s use of technology. In this study, I assert that the constructs
found within the intersection of the teaching practices and the teacher’s use of technology,
support the students’ scientific inquiry in the classroom.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

62

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Despite a wealth of research recognizing the importance of teachers’ roles in inquiry
classes, few studies have examined the teachers’ role in implementing and supporting
technology-enhanced tools in the classroom (Kim et al., 2007). Few studies have examined
approaches to balancing technology and teacher scaffolding in technology-supported inquiry
classes (Kim et al., 2007) If available, research findings provide little information as to teacher
facilitation of student-centered inquiry in classrooms equipped with technology (Kim et al.,
2007). Thus, exploration of the ways that demonstrate how teachers use technology to support
inquiry warrants further investigation. The conceptual framework presented in Chapter 2 guided
the course of this study, examining the teaching practices and how teachers used technology to
support inquiry in science. The research question that guided my study was: What teaching
practices, with emphasis on how technology is used, do teachers employ to support inquiry in a
science class? This chapter reviews the study’s research design, site selection criteria, participant
selection, data collection, data analysis, and validity and reliability.
Research Design
A qualitative multi-case study methodology was used for this study and was most
appropriate because it allowed for an “in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system”
(Merriam, 2009, p. 39). According to Merriam (2009), a bounded system is a “single entity, a
unit around which there are boundaries” (p. 39). In this context, the researcher constricted the
focus of study around a single unit of analysis–the individual teacher as she taught within the
learning environment context of her classroom. For the purpose and context of this study, the
single unit of analysis was the individual teacher at a chosen school site. The teacher as the
single unit of analysis served to answer the research question. Furthermore, I chose to work on
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

63

this qualitative multi-case study because I was interested in investigating the “holistic and
meaningful characteristics of real-life events” (Yin, 2009, p. 4) as they transpired in a classroom
setting.
A multi-case study methodology served the purpose of my study for several reasons.
First, case study research is particularistic, which means it is focused on a specific situation,
event or phenomenon (Merriam, 2009). Consequently, the case selected for the subject of study
was integral as it revealed information that lead toward a deeper understanding of specific
phenomena and what it might mean on a larger scale (Merriam, 2009). Second, case study
research is descriptive, which means the presentation of the data collected and analyzed
produced a “rich, thick description of the phenomenon” studied (Merriam, 2009, p. 42). Merriam
(2009) defines thick description as being a “complete, literal description of the incident or entity
being investigated” (Merriam, 2009). Third, case study research is heuristic, which means it will
enable the reader to discover or learn something for himself or herself of the phenomenon
studied (Merriam, 2009).
With regard to my study, the multi-case study methodology served the purpose of
deepening my understanding, and my readers’ understanding, of the phenomenon surrounding
teaching practices and the ways in which a teacher used technology to support inquiry in science.
Furthermore, the descriptive nature of this multi-case study and the fact that I chose to focus on
teachers at two different schools allowed for a rich analysis of the phenomenon I discussed in my
conceptual framework.
Site Selection Criteria
The multi-case study for this dissertation took place at two schools. School selection
involved the selection of one high school and one middle school. The reason I centered the focus
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

64

of my study on one teacher from each school was because it represented the “critical case in
testing a well-formulated theory” (Yin, 2009, p. 47). As a critical case, my multi-case study
served to “confirm, challenge, or extend the theory” involving individual teacher’s teaching
practices and the use of technology to support scientific inquiry as I postulated in my conceptual
framework. In addition, focusing my multi-case study at two sites allowed for more in-depth
investigation in studying the extent to which teachers’ practices were influenced by the elements
discussed within my conceptual framework, consequently creating depth in my subsequent
analysis. The school sites that were selected for this study exhibited the following criteria:
1. A school with experienced science teachers who had been teaching for at least 5
years,
2. A school with a science curriculum that fostered inquiry, and
3. A school with technology (e.g., classrooms are equipped with computers and other
technological tools for both teaching and learning, etc.) used in the science
curriculum.
The criteria for site selection were critical, as I wanted to select a school that employed
technology to support inquiry in science classes. Furthermore, the criteria established for site
selection also placed emphasis on the idea that a teacher who worked in a school like the one
described above had access to technology that was most likely needed to meet the goals of a
science class that used an inquiry-based approach to support inquiry. Finally, the fact that I chose
to conduct my multi-case study at a middle and high school versus an elementary was important
because science teachers at the middle and high school levels teach a specific science course and
curriculum over the course of the year. In contrast, an elementary school teacher may teach other
subjects in addition to science, and this variable may affect the teaching practices and ways by
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

65

which technology is used to support inquiry in the classroom. Furthermore, the limited number
of studies in this area of research encompassing middle and high school levels (Kim et al., 2007)
was a reason for selecting to conduct my multi-case study in a post-elementary school setting.
In this study, I contacted the principals and other school administrators via email if their
schools had met the site selection criteria and employed teachers who met the teacher participant
selection criteria. The teachers who were recommended by the principals and other school
administrators were then contacted later via email as potential candidates to be interviewed and
observed in the classroom.
Participant Selection
This study examined the teaching practices and ways that demonstrated how teachers
used technology in a classroom to support inquiry in science, and thus centered on selected
science teachers at the chosen school sites. The reason I centered the focus of my study on
selected teachers was because they represented the “critical case[s] in testing a well-formulated
theory” (Yin, 2009, p. 47). As critical cases, my multi-case study served to “confirm, challenge,
or extend the theory” (p. 47) of teaching practices and use of technology to support scientific
inquiry. The following criteria were used for participant selection:
1. A teacher who had been teaching science for at least 5 years,
2. A teacher who would employ effective instructional strategies when teaching science,
3. A teacher who would encourage collaboration when teaching science,
4. A teacher who would make teaching and learning of science relevant to his or her
students’ lives,
5. A teacher who would support student questioning when teaching scientific processes,
and
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

66

6. A teacher who would use technology regularly when teaching science.
I chose to focus on teachers who had experience teaching a science course and had been
using technology when teaching because I wanted to focus on the ways by which technology was
utilized in the classroom, augmented with teaching practices that had been identified as effective,
to support scientific inquiry. Good candidates would be experienced teachers who, ideally,
possessed theoretical and practical knowledge and abilities about science, learning, and science
teaching. Based on the recommendations from the principals and other school administrators,
they indicated that the candidate teacher participants demonstrated these qualities and taught
science as described by the following National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996):
1. Teaching Standard A: Teachers of science plan an inquiry-based science program for
their students.
2. Teaching Standard B: Teachers of science guide and facilitate learning.
3. Teaching Standard C: Teachers of science engage in ongoing assessment of their
teaching and of student learning.
4. Teaching Standard D: Teachers of science design and manage learning environments
that provide students with the time, space, and resources needed for learning science.
5. Teaching Standard E: Teachers of science develop communities of science learners
that reflect the intellectual rigor of scientific inquiry and the attitudes and social
values conducive to science learning.
6. Teaching Standard F: Teachers of science actively participate in the ongoing planning
and development of the school science program. (pp. 30-51)
The NRC (1996) suggests that implementation and application of the Standards will promote the
best practices of effective teachers and provide them the support they deserve. Furthermore, I
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

67

wanted to select a teacher who ideally demonstrated the elements described within my
conceptual framework.
Data Collection
The primary instrument of data collection and analysis was myself—the researcher
(Merriam, 2009). Yin (2009) asserts that within a case study, data collection methods can vary
and can take on many forms such as the following six sources: 1) documentation, 2) archival
records, 3) interviews, 4) direct observations, 5) participant-observation, and 6) physical
artifacts. Yin (2009) suggests that for a case study to be “good” representation of the
phenomenon being investigated, “multiple sources of evidence” are needed to capture the most
comprehensive illustration in order to answer the research question raised in this study (Yin,
2009, p. 103). As the primary instrument of collecting data for my study, I collected data from
five of the six sources of evidence described by Yin (2009). The participant-observation source
was not used in this study. The rest of the sources (Yin, 2009) were collected to examine the
teaching practices and how the teacher participants used technology to support inquiry in science
courses.
The primary source of the data collected was from the teacher. Yin (2009) indicates that
collecting data from the individual participant will allow for gaining a better understanding into
the individual’s behavior, attitudes, and perceptions that affect the actions and practices
associated with teaching. Furthermore, data collected from the individual teacher participant also
provided insights into explaining how technology was used to support inquiry from the lens of
the teacher. Each of the five sources of data collection for this study is described in the
subsequent sections.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

68

Interviews
Merriam (2009) and Yin (2009) state that interviews are one of the most important
sources for data collection within a case study. Yin (2009) describes that interviews may take the
form of “guided conversations rather than structured queries” which allow the interviewee to
disclose information in a fluid manner (p. 106). Questions raised during interviews served to
address the “why” and “how” behind a particular event or process that occurred in the manner
that it did.
In-depth interviews were utilized during the course of the study and contained open-
ended questions that allowed for the interviewer to ask key respondents “about the facts of the
matter as well as their opinions about events” (Yin, 2009, p. 107). In-depth interviews took place
at the beginning and the end (see Appendices A and B, respectively, for interview protocols) of
the study where the teachers could discuss in detail their insights into teaching practices and
various aspects of technology use in the classroom. During interviews, the format ranged from
being highly structured in which questions were determined before the interview to gather
sociodemographic information, to the open-ended, conversational format, and less structured
(Merriam, 2009). I asked the same questions to both participants, but the order of questions, the
exact wording, and the format and type (and sequence) of follow-up questions varied.
An interview protocol for the teacher participants was developed with some influence
from the interview protocol outlined in Julie Slayton’s previous work on teacher observations.
The interview protocol used included confidential organization of the participant’s information,
interview logistics, and data that were subject to transcription in the later stage of the study.
Furthermore, the interview protocol was also used to document other information about
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

69

emerging codes, themes, and concerns that unfolded during the interview (Creswell & Miller,
2007).
In this study, I conducted a formal pre-observation interview with one teacher participant,
which lasted 33 minutes. I also conducted a formal pre-observation interview with another
teacher participant that lasted 28 minutes. For the formal post-observation interviews, I
interviewed each of the teachers once, which lasted 38 minutes for each. I interviewed the
teacher participants using the Pre-Observation Interview and Post-Observation Interview
protocols (Appendices A and B, respectively). Brief informal interviews occurred at the end of
some of the observations, whenever possible. After all of the observations had been conducted, I
returned and met with each teacher to conduct a follow up interview.
Direct Observations
Direct observations provided an opportunity to examine the unit of analysis in a case
study in its most “natural setting” (Yin, 2009, p. 109). Observations allowed me to examine the
teachers’ behaviors and decision-making processes in action. Observations, in addition to
interviews and documentations, helped to investigate the teaching practices as well as the ways
demonstrating how teachers used technology to support inquiry in a science classroom. For the
purpose of this study, direct observations were conducted while the teachers were teaching a
science lesson. Field notes were taken over the course of the observations and focused on what
was seen. To suppress reactivity, I spent two class periods for each of the teachers observing the
participants prior to the actual data collection/observation. I conducted observations (see
Appendix C for classroom observation protocol) of the teachers in action as I wished to examine
and gather evidence demonstrating their teaching practices and the ways they used technology in
the classroom to support inquiry.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

70

For Ms. Anderson, I conducted two pre-observation visits, followed by a pre-observation
personal interview that lasted about 33 minutes. I then conducted nine classroom observations
and each observation lasted about 85 minutes (15.6 classroom observation hours total). The post-
observation follow up interview, which lasted about 38 minutes, took place immediately after the
last classroom observation.
For Mrs. Brown, I also conducted two pre-observation visits, followed by a pre-
observation personal interview that lasted about 28 minutes. I then conducted seven classroom
observations and each observation lasted about 50 minutes (7.5 classroom observation hours
total). The post-observation follow up interview, which lasted about 38 minutes, took place on
the following class day after the last classroom observation.
The classroom observations served as the primary method of data collection. During the
classroom observations, I collected artifacts related to the lessons, such as handouts or
information about notes on the board. In some instances, the teachers provided artifacts through
electronic file sharing (e.g., Google Drive).
Documentation
Yin (2009) states that documents in case studies can take on many different forms. For
the purpose of my multi-case study, I collected documents chosen by the teachers that they
thought represented their teaching practices and how technology was used in a science class to
support scientific inquiry. Documentation ranged from teachers’ instructional and curricular
resources, narrative field logs, field notes, recorded notes, interview questions, printed materials
handed out in class, photographs, and links to the videos shown in class. Documentation was
important in this case study because it was used to substantiate and supplement evidence from
other sources collected (Yin, 2009). Moreover, inferences were made based on the information
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

71

presented within the documents collected (Yin, 2009). Such inferences generated additional
questions in an effort to provide insights on teaching practices and how the teachers used
technology to support inquiry in a science class.
Data Analysis
I relied on two propositions from the literature within this multi-case study, which were
described within my study’s conceptual framework presented at the end of Chapter 2. The first
involves the assertion that there exists an intersection among the effective general teaching
practices, effective teaching practices in science, and the teacher’s use of technology, to support
inquiry in a science class. The second assertion within my study’s conceptual framework is that
the intersection contains four thematic constructs that emerged from the review of the literature.
These four constructs are instructional delivery, inquiry process, contextualized learning, and
collaboration. For the purpose of this study, I assert that teachers use technology to support
inquiry in science within the scope of the four emergent constructs.
Each of the propositions from the literature review influenced my study’s conceptual
framework and it is these research-based propositions that were used when engaging in my data
analysis. Relying upon the previously described propositions, I engaged in data analysis
surrounding explanation building (Yin, 2009) where my objective was to “analyze the case study
data by building an explanation about the case” (p. 141). After textual data were collected from
interviews and observations of teacher participants, collected data were organized for review or
transcription into a word-processing file for analysis. The accuracy and integrity of the data were
examined further during the transcription process. During the transcription process, short memos
that were related to the transcribed data were written in the margins of transcripts or field notes
to help generate categories of information, such as codes or themes. In addition, a qualitative
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

72

codebook that included codes from past literature as well as codes that may have emerged during
analysis were also developed to help organize the data and facilitate agreement on the
components of the transcripts, as new codes were included and other codes were removed during
the coding process (Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003).
Transcribed data were divided into small units such as phrases, sentences, and/or
paragraphs, and labels were assigned to each unit, accordingly. I assigned these labels or by the
participants themselves. Evidence and information from the transcribed textual data obtained
during the interviews were grouped into codes, and these codes were grouped into broader
themes, which then were grouped into broader dimensions (Creswell et al., 2003). Data were
transcribed and coded looking for patterns that may be related to the teaching practices and ways
that demonstrated how teachers used technology to support inquiry in science courses. The
patterns determined from the data were used to help understand the teaching practices that were
employed as well as the use of technology to support inquiry in science.
Validity and Reliability
To increase the validity within this study, I used several case study strategies (Yin, 2009).
First, to increase construct validity, or the operational procedures for the propositions studied, I
used multiple sources of evidence in my data collection process. To increase internal validity, I
engaged in pattern matching and explanation building during the data analysis. To increase
external validity, I referred to the propositions described in Chapter 2 and used to develop the
conceptual framework for the multi-case study. Creswell et al. (2003), Merriam (2009), and Yin
(2009) demonstrate that validity in a qualitative study is important as the use of multiple
strategies in a case study’s data collection process can assist in increasing accuracy among the
findings.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

73

Specific quotes that demonstrated the views and experiences of teacher participants, as
well as the emergence of important themes, were cited to increase the validity of the results. To
increase the legitimacy of the data, the following validity methods were utilized: member
checking, data triangulation, development of disconfirming evidences, and examination of the
data through peer review and information interview analysis. The development and evaluation of
disconfirming evidence, also known as falsification, were used to look for evidence or reasons
that may contradict a specific claim by the interviewed individual. This validity method involved
assessment of the quality and integrity of the disconfirming evidences/reasons to confirm
whether or not the claim should be rejected (Creswell & Miller, 2000).
As the primary instrument of data collection in this study, my own research biases acted
as a limitation in my research because the understandings I constructed from both the
observations and interviews were constructed from my own perspective, and may not align with
the ways the teacher participants thought or enacted. At the time of data collection, I had been
teaching science both at the middle and high school levels. Maxwell (2013) asserts that one
challenge in qualitative studies is that of the researcher’s own subjectivity. In order to minimize
my own subjectivity, I had to acknowledge and reconsider the ways in which I understood
scientific inquiry and the use of technology, as well as the ways in which these could be
demonstrated in the classroom. In this study, I wrote analytic memos, asking questions about the
data as well as my observational notes of the data. I triangulated the data by examining evidence
from different sources such as interviews, observations, and artifacts obtained from and related
to the observed lessons. I also performed sufficient data collection to reach saturation,
conducting classroom observations until I thought it was no longer necessary to collect data. I
used thick, rich, and descriptive data, providing details and context of the setting and activities
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

74

that took place during the investigation. During data analysis, I consulted the literature to
supplement my understanding of themes and patterns that emerged from the data.
With regard to increasing the reliability in my multi-case study, it was important that the
methods for data collection were consistent between me (researcher) and the teachers (study
participants) (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009). To address the study’s reliability, I outlined the
operational procedures taken for my data collection so that future investigators and researchers
may replicate the same data collection process with the expectation of producing similar results
(Yin, 2009). My presence for every observation and interview, in addition to using the same
observation and interview protocols during each class site visitation, was part of the operational
procedures for this study.
Conclusion
This dissertation study aimed to examine the teaching practices and how teachers used
technology to support inquiry in a science class. It focused on the teaching practices and how
teachers used technology in the context of instructional delivery, inquiry process, contextualized
learning, and collaboration. These four thematic constructs emerged from the review of literature
and influenced the conceptual framework and research design of this study. The conceptual
framework I presented and discussed in Chapter 2 guided the course of this study. The teachers
served as the unit of analysis for each of the two case studies. In-depth interviews with the
teachers took place at the beginning and end of the study. Direct observations took place in the
classroom of the teacher participants, which consisted of 16 total class observations where I was
able to observe the teachers teach and behave within the classroom learning environment
context. Documentation served as a supplemental method of data collection. Finally, data
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

75

collection commenced upon approval of the research protocol by the University of Southern
California University Park Institutional Review Board (Study ID #UP-16-00187).

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

76

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine the intersection of effective teaching practices
and how teachers use technology to support inquiry in science. This study sought to answer the
research question: What teaching practices, with emphasis on how technology is used, do
teachers employ to support inquiry in science classes? The first three chapters of this dissertation
offered an introduction to the problem surrounding teaching inquiry in science, a review of the
literature surrounding teaching practices and technology use in the classroom, and the
methodological design that was utilized for this study. This chapter will now present the findings
that emerged from the data collected and analyzed using the conceptual framework that was
constructed for the purpose of this study.
A qualitative study employing a multi-case study methodology was conducted with data
collected from observations, interviews, and document collection (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009).
Pseudonyms for the school sites, teachers, and student participants were created to ensure that all
participants’ identities were kept confidential. The findings for each case study will be presented
from one another within this chapter. First, the background of the case will be presented
followed by the case study’s findings in relation to the research question. Second, a cross-case
analysis will be presented following the presentation of the findings for each case study.
This dissertation is a qualitative study that utilized the multiple case study method of
examining two science teachers’ classes (one ninth grade science class and one eighth grade
science class) in two separate sites on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. For both cases, I began with
an interview and then conducted multiple consecutive observations.
I will address each case separately, including a brief description of Ms. Anderson and
Mrs. Brown’s individual schools and observed classes, and then will present the findings and
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

77

analysis of each case study. Once I have presented the findings and analysis of each case, I will
conclude with a cross-case analysis of the case studies. The data collected from this study will
address the research question:
• What teaching practices, with emphasis on how technology is used, do teachers employ
to support inquiry in a science class?
Case Study #1: Ms. Anderson – Ninth Grade Integrated Science at Oahu High School
The Oahu High School (OHS) is located in Honolulu on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii.
OHS is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). OHS
participates in the 1:1 computing initiative, which provides a technological tool for use at home
and school to every student and teacher.
At the time of the interview, Ms. Anderson had been teaching middle and high school for
13 years. Ms. Anderson first taught in alternative education, which she described, “So I taught
students that have been…excused from public school. They have to go to a special environment
where they have to kind of basically calm their souls before they can go back in.” Ms. Anderson
had taught science and mathematics at an all boys Catholic school. Ms. Anderson had been
teaching physics at OHS for 2 years, left for Virginia to teach mathematics for 2 years, and then
went back to teach science at OHS.
At the time of the interview, Ms. Anderson was on her fourth year teaching at OHS
where she taught Integrated Science I (chemistry and physics integrated together), college prep
physics to mostly sophomores and juniors, and Advanced Placement Physics to seniors. The
non-tracked Integrated Science I course was a science requirement for freshmen students. Ms.
Anderson had 18 students in her Integrated Science I class that I observed, of which 17 were
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

78

boys. Ms. Anderson served as the Science Department chair at OHS at the time of her
participation in this study.
Research Question: What teaching practices, with emphasis on how technology is used, do
teachers employ to support inquiry in a science class?
The data showed that Ms. Anderson utilized time to support inquiry in science with
opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal representations. Ms. Anderson structured her
lessons with a sufficient amount of time, allowing her to provide her students with the
instructional strategy necessary to enable them to engage in independent practice in inquiry. The
data also showed that Ms. Anderson used student routines (Leinhardt, Weidman, & Hammond,
1987), such as management routines and support routines, to support inquiry in science with
opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal representations. Although Ms. Anderson used
time and student routines to support inquiry in science, the data showed that she engaged her
students in simple inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), not authentic scientific inquiry, which was
evident in the student cognitive processes involved during the class activities.
The data demonstrated that although Ms. Anderson used technological tools to facilitate
students’ participation in scientific processes in her Integrated Science class, the activities did not
foster complex thinking by the students. Ms. Anderson generated the questioning, rather than
promoted the students’ use of questioning during the inquiry process in class. The data showed
that Ms. Anderson used technological tools to engage her students with questioning during the
various stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). The data showed that Ms. Anderson’s class
demonstrated the orientation, exploration, and concept formation stages, but did not exhibit
features of the application or closure stages of the learning cycle during the inquiry process. The
data further showed that Ms. Anderson’s students demonstrated simple inquiry (Chinn &
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

79

Malhotra, 2002), not authentic scientific inquiry, as they engaged in the various stages of the
learning cycle.
Although Ms. Anderson used analogies to help her students make meaning of balancing
chemical equations, Ms. Anderson’s students did not experience a curriculum that was relevant
to their lives and interests through Ms. Anderson’s use of analogies. Ms. Anderson did not
connect teaching and curriculum to her students’ personal, family, or community experiences
and skills. Ms. Anderson presented information during class in a decontextualized, drill-like
manner, in which scientific concepts were presented in isolation (Doherty et al., 2003). Ms.
Anderson’s overemphasis on a single set of procedures such as balancing chemical equations,
rather than making connections to other science concepts and bigger ideas, did not support
authentic scientific inquiry. Although Ms. Anderson’s students conducted research through the
Chemical Reaction Project (CRP) to experience the world beyond their own context using
technology, they did not participate in authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
Ms. Anderson engaged her students with standard scientific explanations of the world by asking
them to describe or explain the chemistry-based topics through Internet-based research.
However, Ms. Anderson, did not ask her students to demonstrate their own understanding of the
scientific topics through the development of their explanations of phenomena.
Ms. Anderson’s use of peer review during class provided the students an opportunity to
cooperate and work together using technological tools as they worked on CRP. However, neither
Ms. Anderson nor her students demonstrated the development of scientific knowledge in pursuit
of supporting authentic scientific inquiry. Ms. Anderson’s students focused on providing
feedback on the presentation during peer review, as opposed to developing scientific knowledge
through providing feedback on the content of the CRP presentation.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

80

Instructional Delivery–Time
Ms. Anderson used time to support simple inquiry in her Integrated Science class. In my
conceptual framework, I defined instructional delivery as manipulation and instructional
technology strategies that provide students with the time, routines, and resources to support
productive learning of science with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal
representations. The data showed that Ms. Anderson used time to support simple inquiry in
science with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal representations. One of the ways
Ms. Anderson used time to support simple inquiry was the application of instructional
scaffolding. Ms. Anderson structured time into three parts and deployed instructional scaffolding
in each. In the first two parts, Ms. Anderson spent 25 minutes structuring her lesson with a
sufficient amount of time to allow her to provide her students with the instructional delivery
necessary to enable them to engage in independent practice in inquiry. In the last part, Ms.
Anderson spent 13 minutes allowing for student independent practice with room for student
interactions. Ms. Anderson had the students work in pairs/groups while she visited each
pair/group and engaged in small conversations with them. In the subsequent sections, I examine
and analyze how Ms. Anderson used time in each of the three time blocks to support simple
inquiry.
2:27-2:35 PM (8 minutes)
During the teacher-guided part of the class activity, Ms. Anderson modeled the chemical
equation “𝐾𝐶𝑙+𝑂
!
→ 𝐾𝐶𝑙𝑂
!
” on the white board and created a matrix to organize the
information. Ms. Anderson asked the class,
Ms. A: Does our first row work?
Ss: Yes
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

81

Ms. A: Does our second row work?
Ss: Yes
Ms. A: Does our third row work?
Ss: No
Ms. A: What are coefficients? Which of these don’t need a coefficient? You can’t
have a half a molecule. Why not? [students took notes while Ms.
Anderson explained] Because they explode! Because they explode! Least
Common Multiple. What does that mean?”
Here, Ms. Anderson spent 8 minutes exploring student prior knowledge and asking students
questions to give her feedback about their familiarity of the topic. In this block of time, Ms.
Anderson modeled the chemical equation and organized the information using a matrix on the
white board, and asked a series of questions through instructional scaffolding.
2:35-2:37 PM (2 minutes)
Ms. Anderson then shifted from whole-class questioning to asking individual students.
Ms. Anderson engaged two students, Jim and Seth, in a discourse:
Ms. A: When I have a balanced equation, what is true?
Jim: The reactants and products are the same.
Ms. A: Close
Seth: You know on the “O” do you multiply that by 3?
Ms. A: What do you do when you multiply this by number 3? To be balanced, we
need something on both sides. So if I have 2 Ks on the left side, I need 2
Ks on the right side. Right? We should try a harder one!
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

82

In this discourse, Ms. Anderson spent 2 minutes probing Jim and Seth’s prior knowledge. Ms.
Anderson used this opportunity to clarify a student question and elaborate further as ideas were
forming, eventually providing clarification on how to balance a chemical equation. Based on the
evidence presented here, Ms. Anderson spent 10 minutes (2:27-2:37 PM) on structured inquiry
and deployed instructional scaffolding fused with questioning to guide her students in a teacher-
directed lesson. In the following sections, I demonstrate how Ms. Anderson used the next 28
minutes (2:37-3:05 PM) to support simple inquiry with opportunities to interpret and create
multimodal representations in her class.
2:37-2:42 PM (5 minutes)
After engaging in a discourse with Jim and Seth, Ms. Anderson gave her students 5
minutes to balance the first chemical equation, “𝐾𝐶𝑙+𝑂
!
→ 𝐾𝐶𝑙𝑂
!
,” allowing her students the
opportunity to complete the given task. Ms. Anderson demonstrated the progression of the
instructional scaffolding to support simple inquiry by presenting students with another example.
Ms. Anderson wrote the chemical equation “𝐶
!
𝐻
!"
+𝑂
!
→ 𝐶𝑂
!
+ 𝐻
!
𝑂” on the white board
and created another matrix to organize the information presented to the students. Ms. Anderson
then asked the students, “So tell me about molecules?” and wrote “C,” “H,” and “O” in the first,
second, and third row, respectively. Ms. Anderson completed the first and second columns, and
stated, “These columns are the reactants.” Ms. Anderson wrote the coefficients for the third and
fourth columns (the products), while the students replied to her questioning as she guided them
in completing the chemical equation matrix. Here, Ms. Anderson spent 5 minutes providing
further scaffolding to extend student thinking and refine their thoughts. In this block of time, Ms.
Anderson simplified the task by completing the first two columns, making it more manageable
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

83

for her students to identify the components (reactants vs. products) of the chemical equation
matrix.
2:42-2:48 PM (6 minutes)
Ms. Anderson spent 6 minutes assessing for student understanding by probing students
with more questions during the teacher-guided instructional scaffolding. She asked,
Ms. A: Why is the second column you want to save for last? [Jack and Jim talked
to each other about the problem] How does changing one column affect
the other columns? [Ms. Anderson drew a “5” on the third column] What
happens when I write 5 here? What if I put a 6 here? [referring to the
fourth column]
Nathan: Oh, we are done. [referring to balancing the chemical equation]
Ms. A: What does it mean when we are done? [Ms. Anderson then changed the
slide on the screen, which showed “Practice Problems”]
In this activity, Ms. Anderson spent 6 minutes guiding and supporting simple inquiry through
questioning that served as a bridge to get the students to the next level. When Ms. Anderson
asked the questions, “Why is the second column you want to save for last?…How does changing
one column affect the other columns?” she assessed students for conceptual knowledge. Ms.
Anderson questioned whether students knew the interrelationships among the components of the
chemical equation. Ms. Anderson then asked two more questions, “What happens when I write 5
here?…What if I put a 6 here?” Ms. Anderson asked these questions to assess for student
procedural knowledge, whether students knew how changing the coefficients of the components
would affect the chemical equation as a whole. Over time, Ms. Anderson increased the level of
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

84

questioning from asking factual recall closed-ended questions (2:27-2:35 PM) to asking open-
ended questions (2:42-2:48 PM) involving student elaboration and explanation to explore further.
2:48-2:52 PM (4 minutes)
Ms. Anderson then shifted the structure of the instructional scaffolding from teacher-
guided to pair/group-based student-driven. Ms. Anderson instructed the class,
If you don’t start, you don’t get a partner. I highly recommend to use a paper, but the best
way to do that is to use a screen shot of the page. What I need to see from you on
Thursday, I need to see your coefficients. I will ask you for your work, so you can’t just
slap numbers on them. You may choose a human to work with on this. You can also
choose to work by yourself. But you cannot choose to not work. Go, go! You got about
10 minutes. Hurry up!
In this part of the instructional scaffolding, Ms. Anderson spent 4 minutes providing her students
the instructions for the pair-group-based student-driven part of the class activity. In this block of
time, students prepared their transition to work with their peers.
2:52-3:05 PM (13 minutes)
For the remainder of the class activity, Ms. Anderson spent 13 minutes providing
opportunities for student independent practice with room for student interactions. Ms. Anderson
walked around the classroom and provided immediate feedback, as well as physical and verbal
prompts, to student questions as students worked together on the classwork. Students worked on
the “Practice Problems” using their iPads as they engaged in pair/group-based discussions. For
example, Jim and Elmer interacted in this block of time. While seated, Elmer turned around and
talked to Jim how to balance the first chemical equation on the “Practice Problems” classwork.
Elmer stated, “It has to be 4𝐴𝑙, or wait, 3𝐴𝑙.” Jim responded, “You also need to take care of the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

85

right side of the equation.” Jack looked over Jim’s iPad while Jim explained. Elmer then asked
the teacher, “Ms. Anderson, is this correct?” Ms. Anderson responded, “I don’t know.” Ms.
Anderson walked over to Elmer and checked his work. Ms. Anderson stated, “That’s correct!
I’m excited!” Here, Ms. Anderson provided Jim and Elmer with the opportunity to discuss about
the “Practice Problems.” Ms. Anderson gave Jim and Elmer the time with the opportunity to
express what they thought about the given task and to provide feedback to each other as they
completed the process of balancing a chemical equation. Ms. Anderson told Elmer that his work
was correct after giving Jim and Elmer the time to work together. As the student-driven part of
the activity continued, another student, Cornelison, asked for Ms. Anderson’s attention, “Ms.
Anderson?” Ms. Anderson replied, “I’ll be right over there.” On the way to see Cornelison’s
work, Ms. Anderson checked Ethan’s work, then walked over and checked Cornelison’s work.
Ms. Anderson walked over to see Miguel, looked down and checked his work. Ms. Anderson
stated, “I like this! Correct, correct, correct...move on! Move on!” Ms. Anderson clapped her
hands as she walked over to see Chapman. Ms. Anderson then checked Chapman and Seth’s
work. Ms. Anderson said, “I think you transpose the number on top!” Chapman responded, “Oh!
I think I got it now.” In this part of the class activity, Ms. Anderson moved around the classroom
while students worked together in pairs/groups balancing the chemical equations. When the
students asked for Ms. Anderson’s attention, she checked for student work, gave them brief
feedback, and prompted students to continue. Ms. Anderson then wrapped up the activity and
gave the class instructions for the next class.
In summary, Ms. Anderson used time to support simple inquiry in science with
opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal representations. Ms. Anderson structured
time into three parts and deployed instructional scaffolding in each. During the first part, Ms.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

86

Anderson spent 10 minutes exploring student prior knowledge, asking students questions to give
her feedback about topic familiarity, modeling the chemical equation, and organizing the
information to guide students. In the second part, Ms. Anderson spent 15 minutes providing
further scaffolding and simplifying the tasks for the students. Also, Ms. Anderson probed the
students through increased level of questioning. Ms. Anderson used these blocks of time to
structure her lesson with a sufficient amount of time to allow her to provide her students with the
instructional delivery necessary to enable students to engage in independent practice in inquiry.
Ms. Anderson then transitioned to the last part where she spent 13 minutes allowing for student
independent practice with room for student interactions. In the latter, Ms. Anderson was no
longer only disseminating information, but also facilitating the learning of information. Ms.
Anderson re-organized the class interactions from teacher-guided to pair/group-based,
encouraging student-student dialogues while students worked together on completing their
assigned classwork.
In this class activity, Ms. Anderson used time to engage her students in simple inquiry
(Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), not authentic scientific inquiry. Chinn and Malhotra (2002) state that
simple inquiry tasks incorporate few, if any, features of authentic scientific inquiry. In the class
activity examined here, Ms. Anderson demonstrated simple illustration, a type of simple inquiry
task (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). They (2002) describe that in simple illustration, students follow
a specified procedure and observe the outcome. They (2002) argue that simple illustrations are
inquiry tasks only in the narrowest sense. One feature that can be examined when students
engage in simple illustration is the cognitive processes involved. The cognitive processes in
simple inquiry tasks are less complex because they are based on very simple models of data. In
contrast, in authentic scientific inquiry, the cognitive processes are more complex and
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

87

sophisticated because authentic scientific inquiry involves developing rich and complex models
of data (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
Scientists engage in fundamental cognitive processes when they conduct research (Chinn
& Malhotra, 2002). These cognitive processes include, but are not limited to, generating a
research question, designing a study to address the research question, making observations,
explaining results, developing theories, and studying others’ research. In the next sections, I
examine and analyze how Ms. Anderson’s class demonstrated two cognitive processes:
generating a research question and designing a study to address the research question.
Generating a research question. In this class activity, Ms. Anderson asked her students
questions that fostered scaffolding and chunking of information. By doing so, Ms. Anderson did
not provide opportunities for her students to generate their own research questions. For example,
Ms. Anderson modeled the chemical equation, “𝐾𝐶𝑙+𝑂
!
→ 𝐾𝐶𝑙𝑂
!
” on the white board and
asked the following guiding questions, “Does our first row work?...Does our second row
work?...Does our third row work? What are coefficients? Which of these don’t need a
coefficient? You can’t have a half a molecule. Why not?” Ms. Anderson supported simple
inquiry tasks by providing her students with the research questions to investigate. Chinn and
Malhotra (2002) argue that in simple inquiry tasks, students are provided with the research
question or the question to investigate. In authentic scientific inquiry, on the other hand, students
must develop and employ strategies to figure out for themselves what their research question is
or the question to be investigated (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Here, Ms. Anderson explored
student prior knowledge and asked students questions to give her feedback about their familiarity
of the topic. However, by doing so, students did not have the opportunity to ask their own
research questions.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

88

Designing a study to address the research question. In Ms. Anderson’s class, the
students did not design a study to address the research question. Instead, the students followed
simple directions on how to implement a procedure, a feature of simple illustration (Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002). Ms. Anderson supported simple illustration when she asked and provided the
class with simple directions to implement a procedure for balancing the equation “𝐾𝐶𝑙+𝑂
!
→
𝐾𝐶𝑙𝑂
!
.” Chinn and Malhotra (2002) argue that procedures in most simple inquiry tasks are
straightforward, as students follow a short series of prescribed steps. In authentic scientific
inquiry, in contrast, scientists invent procedures that are complex, that often require ingenuity in
their development, and that use model systems, to address questions of interest.
In summary, with regard to cognitive processes, Ms. Anderson used time to engage her
students in simple inquiry, not authentic scientific inquiry. In the next sections, I discuss how
Ms. Anderson structured and used student routines to support simple inquiry.
Instructional Delivery—Student Routines
Ms. Anderson used student routines to support simple inquiry, not authentic scientific
inquiry. Leinhardt et al. (1987) state that routines are fluid, paired, scripted segments of behavior
that help movement toward a shared goal. They (1987) suggest three categories of student
routines: management routines, support routines, and exchange routines. In the subsequent
sections, I examine and analyze the way Ms. Anderson used management and support routines in
a separate classroom observation.
Management routines. Ms. Anderson used management routines to support simple
inquiry. Leinhardt et al. (1987) describe that management routines provide a classroom
superstructure within which the social environment and behaviors are clearly defined and well
known. They (1987) posit that management routines can be thought of as housekeeping,
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

89

discipline, maintenance, and people-moving tasks. One way Ms. Anderson used management
routines to support simple inquiry was the application of transition where students switched
focus from one activity to another. For example, the bell rang and Ms. Anderson asked the class,
“It’s Monday morning and what do we have to do?” Miguel responded, “Morning Bulletin.” Ms.
Anderson replied, “Do it!” The tardy bell rang and the students were seated. Ms. Anderson
commented further, “What’s for lunch today? That’s all I need to know. Hurry, hurry, take a
look.” While Ms. Anderson stood by her desk and looked at her laptop, the students were on
their iPads as they read the morning bulletin. Ms. Anderson asked students more questions,
Ms. A: What else is going on, on campus?
Miguel: Spring music concert
Ms. A: Okay, what else? Did you guys go to the hula performance yesterday?
Miguel: I’m going to the film festival.
Ms. A: What else is going on this week?
Ethan: State judo
Ms. A: Are you competing? [referring to Ethan]
Ethan: Yes
As students read the morning bulletin on their iPads, Ms. Anderson wrote on the white board the
chemical equation, “𝐴+2𝐵 ↔𝐶+2𝐷.” Two minutes into the class, Ms. Anderson transitioned
to the next activity. First, she assigned students letters, then she re-grouped and asked them to
move their seats. The class reorganization took about a minute to accomplish. Ms. Anderson
prompted the class after the students sat in their new seats, “Here’s what we are going to do.
What is this?” Cornelison answered, “Le Châtelier’s Principle.” Ms. Anderson gave the class the
instructions for the next activity,
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

90

You might assume that the equation is balanced. In your group, decide if there’s too
much chemical in this reaction. Decide what chemical is too much and which chemical is
needed to raise the equation to make it go the other way.
Ms. Anderson then asked the students to discuss the information she gave them. The students
then discussed the information with each other without using their iPads.
Here, Ms. Anderson’s management routines promoted her class to transition seamlessly
from one activity to the next. During the first transition, Ms. Anderson gave the class an explicit
cue immediately after the students entered the classroom. She prompted the class, “It’s Monday
morning and what do we have to do?...Do it!” Ms. Anderson’s use of the cue prompted her
students to read the morning bulletin on their iPads. In this part of the class activity, the students
independently and directly accessed the morning bulletin information using their iPads without
further reinforcements from Ms. Anderson, suggesting a practiced class management routine.
Instead of directing students what to do or how to retrieve the morning bulletin, Ms. Anderson
was able to converse with her students of their participation in school events. When students read
the morning bulletin, it also provided Ms. Anderson with the opportunity to prepare to transition
to the next activity. In the second transition, Ms. Anderson re-grouped the students before
allowing them to discuss about Le Châtelier’s Principle. The second transition took about a
minute without the need for Ms. Anderson to tell students what to do or how to re-group
themselves. By assigning students letters, Ms. Anderson used this approach to expedite the re-
grouping process. The quick re-organization of the class to move on to the formal class
instruction provided Ms. Anderson an opportunity to transition fluidly and efficiently, and focus
more on the pair/group-based class activity relating Le Châtelier’s Principle instead of managing
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

91

the class. The example of Ms. Anderson’s use of management routines set the stage for inquiry
by orienting students before engaging in the class activity, thus, preparing them for learning.
Ms. Anderson then transitioned to the next activity, regrouped the students, and gave
them further instructions. Ms. Anderson’s instructions focused on the identification of the
components necessary to balance the equation, “𝐴+2𝐵 ↔𝐶+2𝐷.” The instructions were to
determine if there was too much of a given chemical, to determine what chemical was too much,
and to determine which chemical was needed to be modified to balance the equation.
Although Ms. Anderson’s use of management routines set the stage for simple inquiry by
orienting students before engaging in the main class activity, the use of management routines to
support authentic scientific inquiry was not evident. In the next section, I examine how Ms.
Anderson used support routines in her class.
Support routines. Ms. Anderson used support routines through the application of
AirDrop, Notability, and Moodle, in her Integrated Science class. Ms. Anderson used support
routines through the utilization of the technological tools to support student-student and teacher-
student interactions (AirDrop and Notability), as well as to support students as they reflected
(Moodle) on their experiences during class relating balancing chemical equations. Leinhardt et
al. (1987) posit that support routines define and specify the behaviors and actions necessary for a
learning-teaching exchange to take place. In the subsequent sections, I examine how Ms.
Anderson used these technological tools in her class to support simple inquiry.
In the beginning of this class activity, Ms. Anderson gave the students 10 minutes to
compare their individual responses on how to balance a chemical equation. Ms. Anderson
prompted the class,
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

92

Here is your job. As a duo, you are looking through the materials you have, and you are
comparing answers. You are working as a duo and come up with a right new solution.
Second, after you have worked on this problem, you will discuss the right process. You
are going to make a “T” table and should explain “Do” and “Do Not.” On this side
[referring to the “Do”], you will have a number of steps such as “What do you do? How
do you do it?” On the “Do Not” side, include “What are things that you want to avoid?”
Here, Ms. Anderson asked the students to compare their answers with a partner, generate the
correct solution, and discuss the correct process yielding the correct solution (see Appendix D
for a student work sample of the “Do’s and Don’ts” “T” table). Although Ms. Anderson provided
the instructions, it was not evident that the students performed all the tasks that she wanted them
to conduct within the allotted 10 minutes.
After the 10 minutes of teacher-centered instruction and use of technology by the
students, Ms. Anderson asked them to send their work to the other students. Ms. Anderson
prompted them,
Listen up. Can you please? I want you to AirDrop your “Do’s and Don’ts.” I want you to
AirDrop them to me. You [Trevor and Ford] need to AirDrop your work to Chan and
Miguel. Jarred and Elmer, AirDrop your “Do’s and Don’ts” to Haden and Jim. Haden
and Jim, AirDrop your “Do’s and Don’ts” to Jack and Doug.
The exchange of student work was done through the use of AirDrop on student iPads. Once
students received the “Do’s and Don’ts” work from the other student pairs, Ms. Anderson then
prompted them to open it on Notability. Ms. Anderson used Notability to provide opportunities
for her students to further examine the processes in balancing a chemical equation. Ms. Anderson
explained,
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

93

Open your “Do’s and Don’ts on Notability. Once you have accepted it, turn off your
AirDrop. Each group has a set of steps from another group. Here is your job. You are
going to solve your problems. You must follow the steps they gave you. Every time
you’re stuck, you need to modify their directions. If you have enough room, you’re not
just solving the problem as fast as you can. You’re following the steps that they wrote.
You have 8 minutes to work that through. Work in groups. Maybe one can read the steps.
So here’s the problem. You’re going to solve the problem using their steps. If you just
think their steps are not clear, then fix it. Do it by following their steps.
Through the use of Notability and AirDrop, Ms. Anderson was able to specify the actions
necessary for her students to engage in the activity. Ms. Anderson was specific with the
progression of the task; she instructed her students to examine the procedures and “modify their
directions…then fix it” when they were not clear.
Although Ms. Anderson utilized Notability and Airdrop to structure the class activity, the
usage of these technological tools was not adequate for the learning-teaching exchange to take
place on its own. For example, Doug asked, “Don’t I have to write things on the end? You know
what I’m saying [referring to Haden]?” Haden responded, “What do you mean?” Here, the
dialogue between Doug and Haden indicated a lack of understanding of the given task even
though they used the technology. Ms. Anderson needed to provide the class with feedback,
reinforcing the prompt for clarity, “If you change anything, write something to show the
modifications, then send it over to the original group.” When Seth asked Cornelison, “How do
we do this?” he posed a question that demonstrated his lack of understanding of how to complete
the task, similar to Doug’s situation. Cornelison’s reply to Seth, “You basically explain the
problem” was not the same information as Ms. Anderson’s prompt, indicating Cornelison’s
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

94

misinterpretation of Ms. Anderson’s instructions. It was evident in the example discussed here
that although Ms. Anderson used Notability and Airdrop to provide a structure during the class
activity, the student use of these technological tools without further teacher guidance, was
inadequate to complete the tasks that she had assigned.
After 8 minutes was up, Ms. Anderson prompted the class,
Silently, we are going to work on your Moodle for your journal. I want you to walk
through and write down the most important steps. I want to give you about 7 minutes to
really get things through. You’re on your own. You have seen the other people’s list you
have worked on. Think through it.
The students worked on their journal reflections quietly and independently using Moodle on their
iPads. In this case, Ms. Anderson specified the actions necessary for a learning-teaching
exchange to take place through the use of Moodle. Ms. Anderson prompted her students to
reflect on their examination of the processes involved in balancing a chemical equation as they
wrote their journal on Moodle. Bodner (1986) explains that during inquiry, the teacher
“questions students’ answers whether they are right or wrong, insists that students explain their
answers, focuses the students’ attention on the language they are using…and encourages the
student to reflect on his or her knowledge” (p. 877). In this example, although Ms. Anderson
used Moodle to provide instructions supporting student reflection of their experiences relating
the exchanges of their work, she did not question the student answers whether they were right or
wrong, or insisted that they explain their answers.
Inquiry Process
In this section, I examine and analyze Ms. Anderson’s teaching practices focusing on the
way she engaged her students in the inquiry process in her Integrated Science class. In my
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

95

conceptual framework, I offered that teachers who engaged their students in the inquiry process
using technology guided and facilitated their students’ complex thinking using technology to
encourage students to actively engage with questioning, hypothesis, ideas, evidence, and
scientific process. Although Ms. Anderson used technological tools to facilitate students’
participation in scientific processes, the activities did not foster complex thinking by the
students, and the questioning was generated by Ms. Anderson rather than promoted their use of
questioning during the inquiry process. In this observed class activity, Ms. Anderson and her
students demonstrated features of orientation, exploration, and concept formation stages of the
learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). The data showed that Ms. Anderson’s class spent most of the
time in the concept formation stage of the learning cycle. Ms. Anderson exhibited a teacher-
centered questioning strategy when she asked scaffolding questions, and she answered most of
her questions. The data also showed that Ms. Anderson supported simple inquiry, not authentic
scientific inquiry, when she engaged her students in simple observations (Chinn & Malhotra,
2002) relating Le Châtelier’s Principle.
I examine and discuss how Ms. Anderson used technological tools to engage her students
with questioning and scientific processes throughout the various stages of the learning cycle
(orientation, exploration, concept formation, application, and closure) (Hanson, 2005). I begin
my examination with the orientation stage. Hanson (2005) describes that the orientation stage is
when the teacher prepares students for learning, making connections with prior knowledge,
creating student interest, and providing the motivation for the activity. Although the teacher
primes the student for learning during the orientation stage, it is not intended to foster complex
thinking.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

96

Ms. Anderson used technological tools such as Nearpod to engage her students with
questioning during the orientation stage of the learning cycle. Ms. Anderson prepared the
students for learning and made connections with prior knowledge, but did not create student
interest or provide the motivation for the activity. As expected, Ms. Anderson did not foster
complex thinking in the orientation stage.
To understand how Ms. Anderson used Nearpod to engage her Integrated Science
students with questioning during the orientation stage, I examine a piece of evidence and analyze
it thereafter. In one of the classes, Ms. Anderson projected Nearpod on the flat screen TV. A
student asked, “Should I join that Nearpod?” Ms. Anderson responded, “You should join that
Nearpod.” Ms. Anderson showed the Nearpod access code on the flat screen TV so students
could access Nearpod through their individual iPads. The students had opened the Nearpod file
on their iPads before Ms. Anderson showed “Equilibrium and Le Châtelier’s Principle” on the
flat screen TV. Ms. Anderson asked the class,
Ms. A: What does it mean by equilibrium?
Miguel: Equal
Ms. A: Where does it come from you speak of?
Miguel: Math
Ms. Anderson wrote “1+1= 2+0” on the white board and asked, “Give me a fancy way of
writing a zero.” A student replied, “Zero over 1.” Ms. Anderson continued and asked,
What does it mean by equilibrium then? Does it go left and right? Not every chemical
reaction is that way. But as we write them…so think of it as baking a cake. What happens
to that arrow? [referring to the arrow in the chemical equation] We heat them. It’s not
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

97

part of the reaction, but we do something to the reaction. I’m not feeling cake today, lets
talk about cookies.
Here, Ms. Anderson prepared the students for learning by projecting the Nearpod access
code on the flat screen TV. Ms. Anderson had indicated that students needed to access Nearpod
on their iPads when she replied to a student’s question with, “You should join that Nearpod.”
The students accessed the Nearpod file on their individual iPads. By doing so, this segment of
the class activity allowed Ms. Anderson to transition to the next activity, the questioning and
making connections with student prior knowledge.
Ms. Anderson questioned and made connections with student prior knowledge when she
asked, “What does it mean by equilibrium?” The question asked involved retrieving relevant
factual and conceptual knowledge using student prior knowledge. Miguel answered the question
with “Equal” referring to his understanding of the word equilibrium. Ms. Anderson then asked
Miguel, “Where does it come from you speak of?” Miguel replied and indicated that the term
equilibrium meant “equal” in math. Ms. Anderson made another connection with student prior
knowledge when she prompted, “Give me a fancy way of writing a zero” and a student replied,
“Zero over 1.” The student answered the question without hesitation or asked for further
clarification from the teacher. The student offered a response to Ms. Anderson’s question
demonstrating the student’s ability to recall information that he had learned at a previous time.
This type of reasoning involved making connections with prior knowledge. Both questioning and
making connections with student prior knowledge provided an opportunity for Ms. Anderson to
reinforce the concept equilibrium.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

98

Ms. Anderson used an example (1+1= 2+0) that her students could easily understand
and then she asked the questions, “What does it mean by equilibrium then? Does it go left and
right?” To help students understand the concept, Ms. Anderson explained,
…so think of it as baking a cake…We heat them. [referring to the arrow in the chemical
equation] It’s not part of the reaction, but we do something to the reaction. I’m not
feeling cake today, let’s talk about cookies.
Ms. Anderson chose and used the process of baking a cake as an analogy for what happens in a
chemical reaction. Ms. Anderson used terms and phrases that students were familiar with such as
“baking a cake,” “heat,” and “cookies” to help the students understand the concepts that she
wanted them to learn. Although Ms. Anderson provided concrete examples, she did not explain
how the process of “baking a cake” related to a chemical reaction. Ms. Anderson made an
assumption that the students had prior knowledge on the processes involving baking a cake.
Furthermore, Ms. Anderson did not ask students to confirm or assess for student understanding
of what she was talking about. Ms. Anderson activated student prior knowledge but did not allow
her students to ask questions to help construct new knowledge.
During the orientation stage, neither creating student interest nor providing the
motivation for the activity was evident in this part of the class activity. The students did not
respond or ask questions to know more about Ms. Anderson’s analogy of “baking a cake.” Ms.
Anderson did not give her students the time or opportunity to ask questions during her
explanation of baking a cake as an analogy. It was not evident in the students’ behavior or
language that they were interested or motivated during the orientation stage. However, the
students were listening and taking notes on Ms. Anderson’s explanations, demonstrating passive
involvement during the orientation stage.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

99

In summary, Ms. Anderson used Nearpod to direct the students’ attention during the
orientation stage. The teacher used questionings to activate student prior knowledge. Ms.
Anderson used questionings to communicate information to students that she believed was
important to set the students up for the next activity. It was not evident that Ms. Anderson
sparked the students’ curiosity or motivated them to be actively involved aside from taking
notes. It was not evident at this point that Ms. Anderson fostered complex thinking by the
students. Next, I examine Ms. Anderson’s teaching practices during the exploration stage of the
learning cycle.
Ms. Anderson used technological tools to engage her students with questioning and
scientific processes during the exploration stage. Hanson (2005) describes that the exploration
stage gives students the opportunity to make an observation or to analyze some data or
information. Students are then encouraged to propose, question, and test hypotheses they
generate (Hanson, 2005). In the case of Ms. Anderson, she gave the students the opportunity to
make an observation of a chemical reaction shown on Nearpod. Ms. Anderson then encouraged
her students to propose a hypothesis using their iPads. However, Ms. Anderson did not give the
students the opportunity to analyze data, or question and test the students’ hypothesis during the
exploration stage of the learning cycle. To understand how Ms. Anderson used technology to
engage her students with questioning and scientific processes during the exploration stage, I
introduce the evidence first and analyze it subsequently.
Ms. Anderson projected the question, “What is Equilibrium?” on Nearpod and said, “The
mass before must be the same as the mass after, why?” A student responded, “Because mass
cannot be destroyed.” Ms. Anderson changed the slide on Nearpod to “Le Châtelier’s Principle”
and asked another question, “Are we balanced?” Ms. Anderson showed on Nearpod an image of
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

100

a seesaw where the left side was lower than the right side. Ms. Anderson continued, “It is
absolutely correct that one of my black silhouettes here should go to the right side of the
seesaw.” Ms. Anderson changed the slide on Nearpod. One of the students, Jack, asked a
question, “What does shift mean?” Ms. Anderson used her hands and explained. The rest of the
students were on their iPads taking notes. Ms. Anderson asked the class,
Ms. A: So what does it mean by shift?
Cornelison: [raised his hand and answered] Is it reaction?
Ms. A: Yes. [Ms. Anderson then drew on the white board] What would happen if
I removed this guy? [referring to an image of a person on the right side of
the seesaw]
Jack: Then it would move.
Ms. Anderson drew stick men on the seesaw and erased them to demonstrate shifting. Ms.
Anderson continued to ask the class,
Ms. A: Have you ever stuck gummy bears in a soda?
Student: It explodes?
Ms. A: [used her hands to demonstrate expanding] But if you put the gummy bear
in water, they actually shrink a little bit.
In this portion of the class activity, Ms. Anderson posed a question, “What is
Equilibrium?” and stated that the mass before must be the same as the mass after. She then asked
the class why. When a student responded, “Because mass cannot be destroyed” Ms. Anderson
did not take the opportunity to have the student expand on the response. The student’s response
involved an important concept relating “Equilibrium” and Ms. Anderson did not leverage the
student’s response to explore further. Instead, Ms. Anderson changed the Nearpod slide, posed
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

101

another question, “Are we balanced?” and described the image on the slide. When Jack asked the
question, “What does shift mean?” Ms. Anderson asked the class for an answer instead of
directly answering it. Cornelison then responded, “Is it reaction?” Ms. Anderson replied, “Yes”
but did not ask Cornelison to check for further understanding. Ms. Anderson missed the
opportunity to scaffold on Cornelison’s response considering he answered Ms. Anderson’s
question correctly. Ms. Anderson then continued and asked the class, “What would happen if I
removed this guy?” Jack’s response, “Then it would move” indicated an understanding of the
effect of removing a component of the reaction. Ms. Anderson missed another opportunity to
allow a student to expand on his response. Instead of challenging Jack to expand on his response
and have a sense of his thought process, Ms. Anderson asked another question involving a new
idea, “Have you ever stuck gummy bears in a soda?” A student responded with, “It explodes?”
suggesting a possible outcome. Ms. Anderson answered, “But if you put the gummy bear in
water, they actually shrink a little bit.” The teacher’s response relating placing a gummy bear in
water and stating that the process would result in shrinking the gummy bear provided a general
sense of a chemical reaction. Ms. Anderson did not describe in detail the chemical processes
involved or provide a clear explanation on how the gummy bear example related to the
equilibrium concept. Ms. Anderson made an assumption that by providing another example
would lead to a better understanding of the concept that she had introduced earlier during class.
Although the use of visual representations on Nearpod slides supported Ms. Anderson’s
teaching of equilibrium, Ms. Anderson did not provide opportunities for students to enrich their
own responses. In this portion of the class activity, it was evident that student learning was a
passive process. Ms. Anderson provided a structure for her students to passively absorb the
knowledge rather than constructing the knowledge by them. Although Ms. Anderson asked
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

102

questions, she would answer her own questions most of the time to keep the class going. Ms.
Anderson also asked students for ideas that she expected them to answer. By doing so, Ms.
Anderson missed the opportunities to explore student thought process or rationalization when a
student engaged in a dialogue with her. Students would ask questions, but the questions they
asked were mostly confirmatory questions (e.g., Is it reaction? It explodes?), indicating students’
reliance on the teacher to make sense of the knowledge.
Ms. Anderson changed the Nearpod slide and asked, “So are we balanced here?” The
students responded, “Oh…too many people.” Ms. Anderson showed another question on
Nearpod, and then checked who answered the questions correctly. Ms. Anderson showed a pie
chart of the results showing the number of students who answered the question correctly, and
then discussed the answer. The students had the same Nearpod slide on their individual iPads as
the one shown on the flat screen TV. Ms. Anderson continued to talk about Le Châtelier’s
Principle, focusing on the reactants and products,
So this cannot be in every reaction…so we cannot just add more vinegar…can be Mentos
and Pepsi…Can it be just lack of CO
2
? To actually test it, we need to put it in a cold jar.
So when we’re talking about this, we cannot just be talking about reactions that are
happening.
Ms. Anderson then changed the Nearpod slide, showing a table with two columns. The
“prediction” is shown in the second column. The students had the same information on their
individual iPads. Ms. Anderson continued to talk,
Ms. A: You can actually do this reaction, but you cannot watch the reaction
because the chemicals are old. What if I add heat?
Miguel: Bubble
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

103

Student: Boil
The students used their fingers to draw on their iPads. Ms. Anderson continued with her
explanation, “Write it out! Write your prediction! This is your hypothesis! Before you submit
this, take a screen shot of your prediction. If you didn’t, at the end you can pull it back up.” The
students continued to use their fingers to draw on their iPads. Chapman used his right point
finger, wrote in the second column (“prediction”), and then took a screen shot. Three minutes
later, Ms. Anderson asked the class, “How are we doing? Give me a thumbs up if you have
already made your predictions. Give me a thumbs up if you are finished…Okay another minute.”
When Ethan submitted his response on his iPad, a “Thank You” notification appeared, indicating
a successful submission onto Nearpod.
Here, Ms. Anderson used Nearpod as a visual aid to support the teaching of Le
Châtelier’s Principle. The students took notes and answered the questions on Nearpod through
their iPads. Ms. Anderson also used Nearpod to determine the number of students who answered
the questions correctly. In addition to using Nearpod, Ms. Anderson asked close-ended questions
such as “So are we balanced here?...Can it be just lack of CO
2
?” Although Ms. Anderson asked
questions in an attempt to engage her students, she would answer her own questions. If a student
answered her question, Ms. Anderson did not provide an opportunity to have her students engage
in an active discourse or scaffolding. For example, Ms. Anderson said, “You can actually do this
reaction, but you cannot watch the reaction because the chemicals are old. What if I add heat?”
Miguel and another student responded, “Bubble” and “Boil” respectively. Ms. Anderson did not
acknowledge the students’ responses or confirm if their answers were correct. Ms. Anderson did
not ask further how the students thought about their answers or make the connection to the
concept about adding heat to a chemical reaction.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

104

When Ms. Anderson showed the Nearpod slide with the “prediction” in the second
column, she instructed the students to write out the students’ predictions. She stated that the
student prediction was also their hypothesis. Although Ms. Anderson prompted and guided the
students when and where to write their predictions/hypotheses, it was not evident how Ms.
Anderson supported the students when generating their own predictions/hypotheses. Ms.
Anderson did not provide her students the opportunity to generate their own research question
either. Bell, Smetana, and Binns (2005) suggest that the first question to ask when determining if
an activity is inquiry-based should be, “Are students answering a research question through data
analysis?” (p. 31). They (2005) posit that classroom activities that do not involve research
questions do not qualify as inquiry activities. Bell et al. (2005) further argue that activities
designed to give practice with a particular skill (e.g., learning to use a triple beam balance or
reading a graduated cylinder) do not embody inquiry. In other words, engagement in inquiry-
based activities must “start with a scientific question” (p. 31). Based on the evidence here, Ms.
Anderson did not foster inquiry during the exploration stage of the learning cycle. Rather, Ms.
Anderson provided a structure necessary for her students to complete the task that she wanted
her students to work on regarding Le Châtelier’s Principle. Ms. Anderson leveraged the
affordances of Nearpod to direct the students’ attention when and where to write their
hypotheses. Ms. Anderson did not provide her students the opportunity to generate their own
scientific questions or formulate the corresponding hypotheses necessary to experience an
inquiry-based class activity (Bell et al., 2005).
In the next section, I present and analyze the evidence relating how Ms. Anderson
demonstrated the next stage of the learning cycle, the concept formation stage. The evidence is a
continuation of the class activity mentioned in the previous section. Hanson (2005) indicated that
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

105

during concept formation stage, concepts are invented by the student or introduced by the
activity. Students answer critical thinking questions and engage analytically with the data
(Hanson, 2005). During concept formation, students answer the questions to lead them to
appropriate connections or conclusions. In Ms. Anderson’s case, the students participated in the
class activity in an attempt to generate conclusion to relate with their hypothesis. Although Ms.
Anderson helped the students generate their hypothesis and conclusion, she used non-critical
thinking guiding questions when doing so. Ms. Anderson did not provide the opportunity for her
students to invent the concepts themselves either. Ms. Anderson used Nearpod as a visual aid
and to provide a structure when she asked guiding questions. When Ms. Anderson asked the
class with guiding questions, she would ask a series of guiding questions without providing the
students the opportunity to answer them or to explain their thought process. When Ms. Anderson
presented the students with data, she did not engage them analytically with the data. Instead, she
used the data on Nearpod to describe the processes for the students. Ms. Anderson performed the
connections for the students in an attempt to lead them to the expected conclusions. In this
portion of the class activity, Ms. Anderson prompted the class,
Ms. A: What I want you to focus on, not because you’re right or wrong, but this is
your hypothesis. We’re going to watch somebody do the lab [referring to
the experiment demonstration on Nearpod] and check your hypothesis. So
what do we need in a conclusion?
Jack: Restate your hypothesis.
Ms. A: So you need a visualization of your hypothesis. [Ms. Anderson wrote
“Restate your hypothesis” on the white board] Now what are you going to
do with it? With that conclusion. We are going to conclude about this after
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

106

you show your hypothesis. [Ms. Anderson then wrote “What happened” in
the second row bullet on the white board] Nathan, thanks! How can we
conclude this?
Nathan: Maybe when we add heat. [Nathan answered Ms. Anderson slowly]
Ms. A: [Ms. Anderson asked while she wrote “When this…this..” on the board] Is
this enough? What happens if they’re already the same? What happens if
they’re all equal?
Student: Purple
Ms. A: It should be purple. What is the last thing we need in our conclusion?
Well, we didn’t do it. [Ms. Anderson wrote “Generalized Explanation of
Theory” on the white board and the students typed on their iPads] You’re
going to finish writing this conclusion. I’m not really interested in your
thoughts originally. I’m interested in, if you can express why, why isn’t
[it] purple? Then I want you to generalize your theory. What happens in
this entire presentation on Le Châtelier’s Principle?
In this 4-minute portion of the class activity, Ms. Anderson informed the students about their
hypothesis. Ms. Anderson instructed the students to check their hypothesis as they observed a
chemical demonstration on Nearpod. Ms. Anderson then guided the students to synthesize their
conclusion by asking them “So what do we need in a conclusion?” Jack answered with “Restate
your hypothesis” but did not elaborate. Ms. Anderson did not ask Jack or the other students to
expand on Jack’s response. Instead, Ms. Anderson asked the class another question “…what are
we going to do with it? With that conclusion?...” and asked another student, Nathan, a related
question “How can we conclude this?” Nathan responded slowly “Maybe when we add heat.”
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

107

Here, Ms. Anderson guided the students in an attempt to generate a hypothesis and link it
to their conclusion. Ms. Anderson used Nearpod as a tool for students to observe chemical
processes. Earlier works by Barron, Kemker, Harmes, and Kalaydjian (2003) provide insights on
the various instructional modes related to technology use in the classroom. They (2003) found
that science teachers used technology as a communication tool, as a research tool for students,
for independent learning, as a productivity tool, and as a classroom presentation tool more often
than for other reasons. In Ms. Anderson’s case, her utilization of Nearpod was evidently related
mainly to the use of technology as a classroom presentation tool. In this particular class activity,
Ms. Anderson’s students used their individual iPads as a productivity tool (e.g., note taking), but
not to support cognitively demanding tasks relating inquiry. Neither Ms. Anderson nor her
students used technology (e.g., Nearpod, iPads, etc.) to invent the concepts or engage
analytically with the data during the concept formation stage of the learning cycle.
Ms. Anderson used guiding questions such as “So what do we need in a conclusion?” to
scaffold during the concept formation stage. Although Ms. Anderson used guiding questions, she
missed the opportunity to elicit cues necessary for students to elaborate on their response. For
example, Jack answered Ms. Anderson’s question “So what do we need in a conclusion?” with
“Restate your hypothesis.” Though Jack’s response was correct, Ms. Anderson did not use Jack’s
answer to help students construct the concepts themselves, making it less meaningful for students
to understand holistically the scientific method. Here, it was not evident that Ms. Anderson’s
students answered the questions she posed necessary to lead them to appropriate connections or
conclusions during concept formation.
In this class activity, Ms. Anderson directed and guided the students during the
hypothesis-, conclusion-, and generalized theory-making processes instead of allowing her
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

108

students themselves to do so during the concept formation stage of the learning cycle. This piece
of evidence is congruous with earlier findings by Wee, Fast, Shepardson, Harbor, and Boone
(2004) on the relationship between teacher direction and student ownership over the activity
during scientific inquiry. Wee et al. (2004) conclude that the greater the degree of teacher
direction, the less ownership a student would feel over the process. In this example, Ms.
Anderson directed her students from hypothesis- and conclusion-making to generalizing their
theory in a way that she performed most of the questioning and answering for the students.
Student participation was low and when Jack and Nathan answered Ms. Anderson’s questions,
neither student provided a meaningful response. Ms. Anderson provided the students with
multiple supporting prompts as she directed them over the course of the class activity, but did not
provide the students the opportunity to explain their reasoning to help construct knowledge
during the concept formation stage.
I now present and analyze the evidence relating how Ms. Anderson did not demonstrate
the next stage of the learning cycle, the application stage. Hanson (2005) indicated that during
the application stage of the learning cycle, students use their new knowledge to work through
exercises, problems or research situations. The application stage occurs subsequently after
concept formation. In Ms. Anderson’s case, she asked her students to make observations and to
take notes on the video using Nearpod and individual iPads. Although Ms. Anderson’s students
worked through exercises using their iPads, they did not use their new knowledge to do so.
Instead, the students continued to make observations and to take notes as they worked through
exercises, not necessarily using their new knowledge. Ms. Anderson continued to ask scaffolding
questions but answered her own questions for the most part.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

109

During the application stage, Ms. Anderson projected the Le Châtelier’s Principle Lab
video on Nearpod. Around 2 minutes into the video, the chemical demonstration showed a color
change,
Students: Ohhh [students gasped as they observed the color-based reaction]
Miguel: This is so cool!
The Le Châtelier’s Principle Lab video on Nearpod stopped. Ms. Anderson got up her seat and
talked to the class about the video,
Ms. A: Let’s see if we can map it through. What’s the chemical reaction sitting
there? You have pink cobalt plus chloride, plus heat, becomes blue plus
water. [Ms. Anderson then wrote on the white board the corresponding
chemical equation] If I add heat…energy always goes from high to
low...from hot to cold…what happens if I add heat to the reaction? What
happens if I remove heat? The change in the color is the reaction, not
diffusion. What’s one option to remove water?
Miguel: Boil it.
Ms. A: Heat it. Just like when you’re cooking. You’ll run out of water and cause it
to dry up. [Ms. Anderson continued to explain the reaction 𝑃𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑐𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑡+
𝐶𝑙
!
+𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝐵𝑙𝑢𝑒+𝐻
!
𝑂] So when you’re running a reaction to see a
shift, you only need to affect one thing at a time. So when you affect a
shift, you need to watch one side at a time. Are you feeling confident? Got
it? So as you’re watching through, take notes. What’s the one that you
don’t need to worry about? When there’s a precipitant.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

110

After explaining and asking questions, Ms. Anderson showed the same video on the flat screen
TV. Students had their iPads out, but watched the video on the flat screen TV. After showing the
video for 3 minutes, Ms. Anderson gave instructions on what students should have had in their
responses,
Ms. A: Please make sure you’re specific as possible. You have a few minutes left
with me. You’re working independently. Let me give you the code for the
homework. [Ms. Anderson then showed the code on the flat screen TV]
Please put your hypothesis at the top. What did they do? What did you
see? When this…this…because, and a generalized explanation and theory
of the Le Châtelier’s Principle. Does everyone have the code? [Miguel
took a screen shot of the flat screen TV] You’ll be done by the end of class
if you’re really diligent about this, but you have until Monday…Basically
you’re telling me your conclusion. Explain Le Châtelier’s’ to me. I’m not
really worried if you’re wrong or right.
Seth: This is due today?
Miguel: Were you listening during class?
Ms. A: Seth, you have until Monday to finish this.
Miguel: Seth needs to listen during class. [the students giggled] This looks
beautiful. [Miguel was referring to the color-based chemical reaction. He
then turned his iPad around and showed it to Ms. Anderson]
Seth: We don’t have to worry about the cloud, right? [Seth was referring to the
precipitation]
Students worked independently on the assigned task for the next 13 minutes.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

111

In this portion of the class activity, Ms. Anderson demonstrated some features of the
exploration and concept formation stages of the learning cycle, rather than demonstrating the
features of the application stage. I described previously how Ms. Anderson demonstrated some
features of both exploration and concept formation stages as the class progressed. I expected that
Ms. Anderson would then transition to the application stage of the learning cycle. However, it
was not the case in Ms. Anderson’s practice. Here, Ms. Anderson asked her students to continue
to make observations and to take notes on the Le Châtelier’s Principle Lab video on Nearpod
using individual student iPads. Although Ms. Anderson asked scaffolding questions, she did not
provide her students the opportunity to think about her posed questions or use student responses
to make sense of the phenomenon (e.g., a chemical reaction). Instead, she answered her own
questions and provided the concept that she wanted her students to understand. For example, Ms.
Anderson explained,
Let’s see if we can map it through. What’s the chemical reaction sitting there? You have
pink cobalt plus chloride, plus heat, becomes blue plus water. If I add heat…energy
always goes from high to low...from hot to cold…what happens if I add heat to the
reaction. What happens if I remove heat? The change in the color is the reaction, not
diffusion…
By examining Ms. Anderson’s explanation, it was evident that she would ask questions in an
attempt to make her students think about what she wanted them to know (e.g., What’s the
chemical reaction sitting there...What happens if I add heat to the reaction...What happens if I
remove heat?) But then, she would answer her own questions instead of having her students
think through the questions and answer the questions, which could have led to active student
participation (e.g., If I add heat…energy always goes from high to low…from hot to
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

112

cold...energy always goes from high to low…) Furthermore, Ms. Anderson invented the concept
for the students when she stated, “The change in the color is the reaction, not diffusion…” Ms.
Anderson continued to demonstrate this pattern of a teacher-centered questioning strategy even
though one of the students responded to her question, “What’s one option to remove water?”
Miguel replied, “Boil it.” Ms. Anderson explained how heat would affect the reaction, but did
not use the opportunity to have Miguel explain his reasoning. Ms. Anderson then informed the
class, “What’s the one that you don’t need to worry about? When there’s a precipitant.” Ms.
Anderson did not explain further or challenge the students to think about the role of having a
precipitant in a chemical reaction. Although Ms. Anderson’s students worked through exercises
using their iPads, they did not use their new knowledge to do so. Instead, the students continued
to make observations and to take notes as they listened to Ms. Anderson, and worked through
exercises, not necessarily using their new knowledge.
Toward the end of the class activity, Ms. Anderson provided structure for students to
complete the task by providing additional instructions. She informed the class,
Please make sure you’re specific as possible. You have a few minutes left with me.
You’re working independently…Please put your hypothesis at the top. What did they do?
What did you see? When this…this…because, and a generalized explanation and theory
of the Le Châtelier’s Principle…Basically you’re telling me your conclusion. Explain Le
Châtelier’s’ to me. I’m not really worried if you’re wrong or right.
Here, Ms. Anderson guided the students in an attempt to generate hypothesis, a generalized
explanation and theory of the Le Châtelier’s Principle, and a conclusion. Ms. Anderson asked her
students to explain their understanding of the Le Châtelier’s Principle. This portion of the class
activity reflected the features of the concept formation stage of the learning cycle. Hanson (2005)
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

113

posits that during concept formation stage, concepts are invented by the student or introduced by
the activity by having students answer critical thinking questions to lead them to appropriate
conclusions. I expected that Ms. Anderson would guide the class to progress from concept
formation to application stage of the learning cycle, but the transition did not take place. Students
worked independently on the assigned task for about 13 minutes. Ms. Anderson did not provide
her students the opportunity to share or discuss their work with their peers. During this portion of
the class activity, students worked independently in an attempt to form the concepts (e.g.,
generate hypothesis, a generalized theory, and a conclusion), but they did not use their new
knowledge.
As I examined the evidence holistically, it was apparent that the class demonstrated the
orientation, exploration, and concept formation stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). The
class activity did not exhibit features of the application or closure stages of the learning cycle.
When the class demonstrated the orientation, exploration, and concept formation stages, some
features, but not all, were evident. Ms. Anderson’s class spent most of the class time in the
concept formation stage. Ms. Anderson exhibited a teacher-centered questioning strategy when
she asked multiple scaffolding questions and answered most of them. When the students
answered Ms. Anderson’s questions, Ms. Anderson did not expand on the student responses or
have the students explain their reasoning or thought process.
The data also showed that Ms. Anderson’s class illustrated a simple observation type of
Simple Inquiry Tasks (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). They (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) state that in
simple observations, students carefully observe and describe objects. The data suggest that Ms.
Anderson’s class demonstrated a simple observation-type of Simple Inquiry Task for the
following reasons. First, Ms. Anderson’s students passively followed her instructions during the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

114

teacher-guided class activity. Chinn and Malhotra (2002) specify that during simple
observations, students follow simple directions on what to observe. Second, Ms. Anderson
directly told the class,
What’s the chemical reaction sitting there? You have pink cobalt plus chloride, plus heat,
becomes blue plus water. If I add heat…energy always goes from high to low...from hot
to cold…what happens if I add heat to the reaction. What happens if I remove heat? The
change in the color is the reaction, not diffusion…
Chinn and Malhotra (2002) point out that during simple observations, students observe
prescribed features. Third, Ms. Anderson instructed her students to observe the color changes, an
indicator of a reaction, on the Le Châtelier’s Principle Lab video on Nearpod. Chinn and
Malhotra (2002) posit that during simple observations, students are told what to observe.
Contextualized Learning
In my conceptual framework, I indicated that contextualized learning took place when
classroom science is linked with the broader community to make meaning of and experience a
curriculum that is relevant to students’ lives and interests using technology that helps students
experience the world beyond their own context. In this study, I examined Ms. Anderson’s
teaching practices, focusing on the elements of contextualized learning the way I defined it, to
support authentic scientific inquiry. Ms. Anderson used analogies as part of her instructional
strategy to help her students make meaning of certain science concepts. However, the students
did not experience a curriculum that was relevant to their lives and interests through Ms.
Anderson’s use of analogies. Although Ms. Anderson and her students used technology to help
the students experience the world beyond their own context, it was not evident that Ms.
Anderson’s Integrated Science class was linked with the broader community. Based on the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

115

evidence, Ms. Anderson demonstrated some, but not all, of the elements of contextualized
learning in her teaching. In the subsequent sections, I examine and analyze the evidence relating
Ms. Anderson’s demonstration of some elements of contextualized learning in her Integrated
Science class.
Ms. Anderson used analogies as part of her instructional strategy to help her students
make meaning of certain science concepts. For example, Ms. Anderson informed the class one
morning,
What we have been doing is balancing equations. Are you okay with drawing Lewis
[Dot] Structures? What we got is a recipe. You can only buy food in certain forms, and
you have to buy the whole thing. You have to buy…because of that, we are going to buy
certain quantities of each to get this and that. We only buy this ingredient and buy that
ingredient, and make something at the end. We organize it this way. This symbol [points
at the white board] means it reacts with. There are catalysts such as heat.
Ms. Anderson explained the information as soon as the class started. She had re-organized the
class in a way that students worked with a new partner for the activity and each student worked
with an iPad. Ms. Anderson continued with her explanation,
We can only use the atoms we have. Here I have the atoms of water. I have an extra. I
cannot create or destroy water. In order to make this complete, I have to use whatever I
got. I cannot buy it in any other way.
Ms. Anderson used physical chemical models as she talked to the students further, “This is when
you construct and deconstruct. You have to make sure that they are balanced.” The students
worked with a partner on balancing the given chemical equations on their individual iPads.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

116

In this segment of the class activity, Ms. Anderson used analogies as part of her
instructional strategy to help her students make meaning of balancing chemical equations. Ms.
Anderson started the class by reminding the students, “What we have been doing is balancing
equations.” She then asked the class, “Are you okay with drawing Lewis (Dot) Structures?” Ms.
Anderson asked but did not provide her students the opportunity to answer the question relating
Lewis Dot Structures. After asking the question, Ms. Anderson then talked about buying food in
a way that suggested that her goal was to help her students make meaning of balancing chemical
equations,
…You can only buy food in certain forms, and you have to buy the whole thing. You
have to buy…because of that, we are going to buy certain quantities of each to get this
and that. We only buy this ingredient and buy that ingredient, and make something at the
end…
Ms. Anderson’s use of the analogy without making the connection explicit, demonstrated that
she assumed the students would be able to make the connection between “buying food” and
chemical reactions. In Ms. Anderson’s explanation, there were three important science concepts
that she did not elaborate which involved making meaning of balancing equations. First, Ms.
Anderson mentioned, “…You can only buy food in certain forms…” Ms. Anderson did not
clarify that there was an energy cost involved in chemical reactions. Second, she mentioned,
“…we are going to buy certain quantities of each to get this and that…” Ms. Anderson did not
explain that the quantity of each chemical reaction component played a role in any given
reaction. Third, Ms. Anderson mentioned, “…We only buy this ingredient and buy that
ingredient, and make something at the end…” Ms. Anderson did not expound on the idea that
certain reactants yielded products in any given reaction. Ms. Anderson used an analogy but was
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

117

not explicit how it related to balancing chemical equations and chemical reactions in general. She
did not ask her students to think about the given analogy to make meaning of balancing
equations. Ms. Anderson’s teacher-centered approach to using an analogy during this class
discussion limited the students’ opportunity to ask a question or inquire about what Ms.
Anderson had presented to them.
Although Ms. Anderson used analogies to help her students make meaning of balancing
chemical equations, it was not evident that the students experienced a curriculum that was
relevant to their lives and interests through her use of analogies. Ms. Anderson did not connect
teaching and curriculum to her students’ personal, family, and community experiences and skills.
Tharp et al. (2000) argue that a teacher who contextualizes his or her teaching practices, designs
and implements instructional activities that are meaningful to students with regard to local
community norms and knowledge. Tharp et al. (2000) argument is further supported by Doherty
et al. (2003),
Contextualizing instruction by situating new information in meaningful contexts activates
students’ prior knowledge, making it more available for association with new
information. This is, of course, in stark contrast to presenting new material in an
atomistic, decontextualized, drill-like manner in which facts are presented in isolation. (p.
6)
As presented here and discussed in the previous sections, it was evident that Ms. Anderson
would present information during class in a decontextualized, drill-like manner, which is in
agreement with Tharp et al. (2000) and Doherty et al. (2003) arguments on teaching practices
relating decontextualized instruction. This notion of teaching in a decontextualized, drill-like
manner, was a recurring teaching practice in Ms. Anderson’s Integrated Science class. Over the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

118

course of my classroom observations, Ms. Anderson focused her lesson mostly on balancing
chemical equations. The overemphasis on a single set of procedures such as balancing chemical
equations, instead of making connections to other science concepts and bigger ideas, did not
support authentic scientific inquiry. The NRC (2012) points out,
…when such procedures are taught in isolation from science content, they become the
aims of instruction in and of themselves rather than a means of developing a deeper
understanding of the concepts and purposes of science. (p. 43)
In order to support authentic scientific inquiry, one approach is to design and implement a
curriculum relating empirical investigations that are relevant to the lives and interests of students
(NRC, 2012). The NRC (2012) describes that empirical investigations involve asking a question,
observing a phenomenon, designing an experiment, collecting data, and testing solutions. Such
features are in accordance with the way Chinn and Malhotra (2002) describe the cognitive
processes (e.g., generating research questions, designing studies, making observations,
explaining results, etc.) involved in authentic scientific inquiry.
Ms. Anderson and her students used technology to help the students experience the world
beyond their own context. Over the course of my classroom observations, Ms. Anderson’s
students used iPads to take notes and work on a project using the Internet. Ms. Anderson focused
her lessons mainly on Le Châtelier’s Principle and balancing chemical equations. To help the
students learn about the role of Le Châtelier’s Principle and balancing chemical equations
beyond the classroom, Ms. Anderson assigned her students the Chemical Reaction Project
(CRP), which took place later in my scheduled visits. Earlier during my scheduled visits, Ms.
Anderson discussed about Le Châtelier’s Principle at the balancing of equation level, and not so
much on its role and importance in the society. Ms. Anderson’s students used their individual
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

119

iPads and the Internet as they worked on CRP. I describe the details about the CRP oral
presentation in the Collaboration section. Students worked in groups and conducted research on
one type of chemical reaction based on the 12 different types of chemical reactions that Ms.
Anderson had listed. Ms. Anderson required her students to work on the following topics and
asked them to either describe or explain the corresponding information, and its relevance in the
real world using the Internet as their source (Appendix E):
• Topic 1: Combustion of methane-Explain the major sources of carbon dioxide
pollution from methane combustion.
• Topic 2: Combustion of octane-Explain how the combustion of octane contributes to
carbon dioxide pollution, present real data (you may use the internet) to address the
importance of this issue.
• Topic 3: Formation of Acid Rain-Describe a specific example (research the problem
on the internet and pick location which is being studied as the basis for presentation).
• Topic 4: Acidification of the Oceans-Describe a specific example (research the
problem on the internet and pick location which is being studied as the basis for
presentation).
• Topic 5: Smog-Research the problem on the internet and pick a major city to use as
basis of your presentation. Use data from the internet in your explanation of the
problem.
• Topic 6: Combustion of hydrogen/Electrolysis of water-Explain the reaction as it
relates to fuel cells in the hydrogen powered vehicles.
• Topic 7: Photosynthesis-Explain the importance of the photosynthesis reaction in
Earth’s natural energy cycle.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

120

• Topic 8: Aerobic Cellular Respiration-Explain the process and purpose of cellular
respiration.
• Topic 9: Anaerobic Respiration of Yeast-Explain the real life application of
fermentation.
• Topic 10: CFC’s Ozone Depletion-Describe the global problem.
• Topic 11: Natural Formation of Calcium Carbonate. [Ms. Anderson did not provide
the performance/task prompt for this topic]
• Topic 12: Acid Neutralization with Antacid Tablets-Describe the science behind
heartburn.
Ms. Anderson helped the students experience the world beyond their own context by also asking
them to answer the following questions as part of their CRP oral presentation, providing an
opportunity for the students to make the connection between Le Châtelier’s Principle and the
society:
• Topics 1 and 2: How can we decrease the formation of CO
2
? Include a real life factor
the people of Earth could change.
• Topic 3: How can we decrease the formation of acid rain?
• Topic 4: How can we decrease the amount of CO
2
being dissolved in our oceans?
• Topic 5: How can we decrease the production of NO
2
?
• Topic 7: How can you increase glucose production in photosynthesis?
• Topic 8: How can you increase energy production in cellular respiration?
• Topic 10: How can we stop ozone depletion?
• Topic 9 [Ms. Anderson did not provide the research question]
• Topic 11: Where do birds get their calcium from to produce CaCO
3
?
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

121

• Topic 12: How do TUMS reduce acid in the stomach?
Ms. Anderson’s students used their individual iPads and the Internet as they conducted their
research and answered the questions relating CRP. Although Ms. Anderson provided an
opportunity for her students to experience the world beyond their own context using technology,
Ms. Anderson did not provide an opportunity for her students to work on a topic of student
interest relating chemistry or generate their own research questions. Instead, Ms. Anderson
provided the research topics that she wanted them to explore, as well as the research questions
for her students to answer.
Although Ms. Anderson’s students conducted research through CRP to experience the
world beyond their own context using technology, they did not participate in authentic scientific
inquiry. Ms. Anderson engaged her students with standard scientific explanations of the world by
asking them to describe or explain the chemistry-based topics through Internet-based research.
Ms. Anderson did not ask her students to demonstrate their own understanding of the scientific
topics through the development of their own explanations of phenomena. The features observed
in this CRP activity represented the features of a simple illustration, a type of simple inquiry
task. Chinn and Malhotra (2002) describe,
In simple illustrations, theoretical explanations sometimes play a role, but the text or
teacher usually presents [emphasis in the original text] the theory…so that students get
no experience in constructing theoretical explanations on the basis of evidence. Indeed,
simple illustrations do no provide evidence [emphasis in the original text] for a theory so
much as they give the teacher an example to use when explaining the theory. (p. 186)
Chinn and Malhotra (2002) further argue, “Authentic inquiry, by contrast, is directed at the
development of theoretical mechanisms with entities that are not directly observable, such as
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

122

molecules, enzymes…and polarized hydrogen atoms” (p. 186). In a similar view, the NRC
(2012) suggests,
…students should be able to construct their own explanations of phenomena using their
knowledge of accepted scientific theory and linking it to models and evidence…they
should be encouraged to develop explanations of what they observe when conducting
their own investigations and to evaluate their own and others’ explanations for
consistency with the evidence. (p. 69)
These statements offer valuable insights into the importance of constructing explanations to
support authentic scientific inquiry. Student participation in authentic scientific inquiry can lead
to a more meaningful experience of the world beyond student context (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002;
NRC, 2012).
I also examined the provision of the CRP research questions by Ms. Anderson. In the
CRP activity, Ms. Anderson did not provide her students an opportunity to ask their own
research questions, compromising an important element of inquiry. Chinn and Malhotra (2002)
emphasize that asking a question is a hallmark of authentic scientific inquiry. In contrast,
students are told what the research question is during simple inquiry tasks (Chinn & Malhotra,
2002). They (2002) describe,
In simple illustrations, students follow a specified procedure, usually without a control
condition, and observe the outcome. The experiment illustrates a theoretical principle,
and the text clearly specifies what the theoretical principle is…Simple illustrations are
inquiry tasks only in the narrowest sense. Students do encounter new empirical
phenomena when they carry out the procedure, but they have no freedom to explore
further. (p. 179)
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

123

The NRC (2012) supports Chinn and Malhotra’s (2002) statement and explains,
Science begins with a question about a phenomenon…and seeks to develop theories that
can provide explanatory answers to questions. A basic practice of the scientist is
formulating empirically answerable questions about phenomena, establishing what is
already known, and determining what questions have yet to be satisfactorily answered.
(p. 50)
In this class activity, Ms. Anderson supplied both the research topics as well as the research
questions. By doing so, Ms. Anderson’s students did not have the opportunity to formulate
empirically answerable questions on their own or determine what questions have yet to be
satisfactorily answered based on the assigned research topics.
Collaboration
In this section, I examine and analyze Ms. Anderson’s teaching practices demonstrating
some elements of collaboration. In my conceptual framework, I defined collaboration as teachers
and students cooperating and producing together in the development of scientific knowledge
using technology to facilitate interaction and exchange of ideas in a classroom. Ms. Anderson
and her students demonstrated some elements of collaboration, but not the way I defined it, in
different contexts over the course of my classroom observations. Here, I examine and analyze
how Ms. Anderson and her Integrated Science students cooperated and produced together using
technological tools to facilitate interaction and exchange of ideas as they worked on the CRP.
The data showed that neither Ms. Anderson nor her students demonstrated the development of
scientific knowledge in pursuit of supporting authentic scientific inquiry. The evidence I present
here relating CRP provides a rich description of the way Ms. Anderson and her students
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

124

demonstrated some elements of collaboration. A copy of the classroom artifact describing the
CRP and presentation guideline is provided in the appendix section (Appendix E).
I begin my examination of the evidence by providing a context of the classroom activity
relating CRP. In the CRP handout, Ms. Anderson enumerated 12 different types of chemical
reactions that her students worked on. Students in Ms. Anderson’s Integrated Science class were
instructed to conduct research on one type of chemical reaction as they worked in groups, and
present their findings to the class. Students were asked to prepare a 4-7 minute oral presentation
with visuals (e.g., PowerPoint, Prezi, etc.). Ms. Anderson specifically listed in the handout the
following scientific ideas that she wanted her students to cover in their presentations:
• An explanation of the topic and its relevance in the real world,
• Presentation of the balanced chemical reaction,
• Description of the reactants and products,
• Presentation of a 3-D model of the chosen molecule, and
• Presentation of Le Châtelier’s Principle.
Ms. Anderson had assigned the groupings two weeks prior based on student performance on the
Kahoot! review game. Ms. Anderson gave the students the opportunity to choose their partners
before playing Kahoot!. Ms. Anderson had also uploaded the CRP electronic resources on
Moodle, the class’ learning management system (LMS), for students to access. Ms. Anderson
gave her students time during class to work with each other on this group-based project. Ms.
Anderson also gave them time outside class to work on the project as homework. I present here
how Ms. Anderson and her students demonstrated cooperation as they worked on the CRP for
two days during class.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

125

Day 1: Thursday
On Day 1 (Thursday), Ms. Anderson’s students created videos as they prepared to present
their CRP. During the first 60 minutes of class, Ms. Anderson and her students had gone over
their homework assignment relating stoichiometry. Ms. Anderson transitioned to CRP and
directed her students to work on it for the remainder of class time.
Ms. A: You have 20 minutes to work on your project. [referring to CRP] If you
don’t have a partner or if you’re done, you may work on the Practice
Problems. [The Practice Problems were the exercise problems relating
stoichiometry that Ms. Anderson had assigned for homework, and not
directly related to the CRP]
Miguel: Do you present in person or present a video?
Ms. A: You need to make a practice video but you need to present in class.
Cornelison got up his seat and walked over to the back lab area. Jake followed Cornelison.
Cornelison and Jake worked on the CRP together. Ethan and Haden (partners) got up, walked
through the back door, and left the classroom to work on their project outside. Jarred and Elmer
(partners) were seated and worked together on their project in the classroom. Jarred opened his
Google Drive, while Elmer had a pie chart on his iPad. All students had an iPad in their
possession. Five minutes later, students talked to each other,
Jake: Can you [Cornelison] send it to me as Keynote? [Jake talked to Cornelison
as they both walked back to their seats]
Cornelison: Do we build the model or choose an image on the Internet?
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

126

Trevor: [overheard Jake and Cornelison’s dialogue and spoke] You’re stealing
stuff. [referring to Cornelison’s statement on choosing an image on the
Internet]
Cornelison: But I cite them. [responding to Trevor’s comment about “stealing stuff”]
Ms. A: But you have to experience how to build them. [referring to building a 3-D
model of the chosen molecule as part of the CRP]
Cornelison and Jake talked to each other about their project. Trevor got up and talked to Ford,
“Okay, let’s go record.” In the meantime, Cornelison and Jake prepared to make a video. Trevor
asked Ms. Anderson,
Trevor: Ms. Anderson, can we go outside? [referring to himself and Ford]
Ms. A: Yes, but not too far. The purpose of the video is to see how you’re going
to present.
Both Trevor and Ford left the classroom through the front door. Larry and Lauren worked on the
CRP as a pair. Although they were seated next to each other in the classroom and were on their
iPads, neither one spoke a word to each other. After 12 minutes of working on the CRP, Seth
commented,
Seth: I’m confused.
Ms. A: I’m surprised. [chuckled as she walked over to Seth]
Seth: We have to make a video?
Ms. A: The video is your practice. [then explained to Seth what he was confused
about]
Chapman and Seth worked together as a pair. They were both seated and were on their iPads.
Seth spoke, “Let’s make an iMovie.” Chapman got up and pushed his chair in slowly. Seth got
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

127

up and followed Chapman. Ms. Anderson checked the other students outside. After 15 minutes
of working on the CRP, the students came back in to the classroom and got seated. Miguel spoke
with Nathan, “So let’s edit the video.” Nathan took out his earpiece and listened to the video on
his iPad while Miguel watched the iPad. Ms. Anderson informed the class,
Ms. A: Where are you linking all these videos to?
Miguel: Moodle?
Ms. A: Journal? On Monday [Day 2 of class time working on this project], you’re
going to pair up and critique each other, and give positive feedback.
Alright, listen, where do you link it? Journal. On Tuesday, I’ll have you
guys do your presentation, stoichiometry first, then presentations after.
We’re going to do the presentations using “sticks of destiny.” [referring to
the random selection of presenters using popsicle sticks]
Seth: Is “sticks of destiny” based on your number? [referring to the order of
chemical reaction as listed on the project handout]
Ms. A: Based on your topic?
Ms. Anderson spoke a few words after and dismissed the class.
During this class activity, although Ms. Anderson directed her students to work
intentionally in partnerships where they cooperated and produced together what she had intended
them to create using technological tools, the class did not develop scientific knowledge in pursuit
of supporting authentic scientific inquiry. Ms. Anderson structured the class so that her students
worked in formal groups. Johnson and Johnson (1999) claim that formal groups are
“cooperative” grouping strategies designed to ensure that students have enough time to
thoroughly complete an academic task. They (1999) assert that when using formal groups, the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

128

teacher designs tasks that include positive interdependence (e.g., a sense of sink or swim
together) and individual accountability (e.g., each member has to contribute to achieve the
goals). When Ms. Anderson’s students worked on the CRP in pairs, they demonstrated positive
interdependence and individual accountability. For example, when Jake and Cornelison worked
together, Jake asked Cornelison to send him a copy of their project as Keynote. In response,
Cornelison asked for Jake’s input whether they would build a 3-D model or choose an image
from the Internet. Chapman and Seth worked together and decided to create an iMovie. Miguel
and Nathan also worked together and edited their video project. These students depended on
each other and contributed as they worked on their project.
Although Ms. Anderson demonstrated the use of collaborative learning strategy by being
flexible with the ways the student groupings worked on CRP during this class activity, neither
Ms. Anderson nor her students demonstrated collaboration the way I defined it in my conceptual
framework. Schroeder et al. (2007) posit that the teacher demonstrates a collaborative learning
strategy by arranging students in flexible heterogeneous groups to work on various activities
(e.g., inquiry projects, discussions, etc.). Ms. Anderson gave her students the opportunity to
choose their preferred partners to work with on the CRP project. Ms. Anderson also gave her
students the opportunity to choose where they would practice and create their videos. Some
students chose to work in the classroom, while others chose to work outside. The students were
also given the opportunity to choose the medium (e.g., iMovie, PowerPoint, Prezi, etc.) by which
they would present their projects. Ms. Anderson also provided the students the time to work on
their project during class and outside class, where students could remotely work on it at their
convenience. Therefore, through the application of a collaborative learning strategy, Ms.
Anderson supported her students by being flexible on how they worked on the assigned tasks.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

129

Ms. Anderson and her students used technological tools to facilitate interaction and
exchange of ideas as they worked on the CRP. Each student in Ms. Anderson’s class had an iPad
in possession, which students used to create their video presentations. Students used iMovie to
create and edit a video reflecting their performance as they prepared for the actual presentation.
Students worked on CRP simultaneously, saved it as Keynote on Google Drive, and submitted
their work on Moodle for later use. Students were able to access their work anytime, anywhere,
because their projects were saved on a shared folder (e.g., Google Drive, etc.) or online (e.g.,
Moodle). Ms. Anderson had also provided the electronic resources (e.g., Chemical Reaction
Project handout) in advance on Moodle for students to access anytime, anywhere, prior to
creating the videos in class.
Here, Ms. Anderson created a learning environment where students worked together in
partnerships to accomplish the tasks that she wanted them to work on. Ms. Anderson formed a
class structure where her students cooperated and produced together using technological tools
that facilitated interactions and the exchange of ideas as they worked on CRP. Although Ms.
Anderson utilized a collaborative learning strategy forming a structure conducive for completion
of the assigned tasks using technological tools, it was not evident in this case that Ms. Anderson
supported authentic scientific inquiry through student cooperation.
I critique the class activity involving CRP and assert that it did not foster collaboration,
based on the definition I offered in my conceptual framework, in pursuit of supporting authentic
scientific inquiry. Rather, Ms. Anderson promoted an inauthentic view of science as a process of
accumulating facts about the world. For example, it is important to note that in this particular
activity, Ms. Anderson did not provide an opportunity for her students to generate their own
research questions, formulate hypotheses, design observations, design experiments, control
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

130

variables, provide evidence, conduct an investigation on the designed experiments, or analyze
their investigations. In this CRP activity, Ms. Anderson provided a structure for her students to
conduct literature research, perhaps in an attempt to inquire about chemical reactions, by having
students explain the topic and its relevance in the real world, present a balanced chemical
reaction, describe the reactants and products, present a three-dimensional model of the chosen
molecule, and present the Le Châtelier’s Principle. The ideas that Ms. Anderson wanted her
students to research seemed important in understanding chemical reactions and their relevance in
the society, but did not involve cognitively demanding or complex tasks promoting authentic
scientific inquiry.
The tasks and ideas that Ms. Anderson wanted her students to work on during this
activity were teacher-generated, algorithmic, rigid, and non-innovative. Although the students
worked together using technological tools, they demonstrated some, but not all, of the elements
of collaboration to support authentic scientific inquiry. Bartholomew et al. (2004) suggest that
procedural instructions enabling students to get the task done can limit the opportunities for
students to engage with the task that leads to the development of higher order executive routines.
They (2004) characterize the lessons that are successful in engaging students and developing
their understanding of the nature of science. They (2004) posit that such lessons involve open
discussions in which the students’ role extends to posing many of the questions and provides an
opportunity to participate in epistemic dialogue. They (2004) argue that teachers who implement
such lessons focus on the development of students’ cognitive capabilities and epistemic
understanding, instead of focusing on the factual knowledge the students are acquiring. With
regard to Ms. Anderson’s teaching practices, she did not engage her students in open discussions
to stimulate students to ask questions as they worked on the CRP. Although the students worked
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

131

in pairs, Ms. Anderson did not encourage them to participate in epistemic dialogue either. The
tasks that the students worked on relating CRP were tasks that required students to extract
information from the Internet and lacked authenticity. The tasks did not stimulate students to
create novel ideas, innovate existing ideas, or add to an existing body of scientific literature. Ms.
Anderson’s students performed tasks that undermined the opportunity to support students to
experience and understand the true nature of science (NRC, 2012). The CRP lesson
demonstrated a structured, factual knowledge-oriented activity where students worked on the
tasks prescribed by Ms. Anderson, and lacked the components needed to directly promote
authentic scientific inquiry. I present and examine the evidence in the next section how Ms.
Anderson and her students continued to demonstrate some of the elements, but not all, of
collaboration during Day 2.
Day 2: Monday
On Day 2 (Monday), Ms. Anderson’s students participated in peer review of the video
they had created on Day 1 (Thursday) as they prepared to present their CRP. During the first 24
minutes of class, Ms. Anderson and her students had worked on a separate activity before
transitioning to CRP. Ms. Anderson then prompted the class as she grouped them,
Ms. A: I want you to find a quiet place for you two [referring to the student
pairs]…I want you to use the “Pros and Cons” you came up with before.
Miguel: The enunciation stuff? [Miguel was referring to the “Do’s and Don’ts” list
that students had worked on before. The list included a student-generated
list of ideas that students should and should not do when presenting in
class. I discussed the context of the “Do’s and Don’ts” list in the
Instructional Delivery section as it related to support routines.]
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

132

Ms. A: Yes
Miguel: I deleted it but I can get it back.
Ms. A: You need to save them on to your DropBox.
Miguel: I don’t have a DropBox.
Ms. A: You can also use your [Google] Drive. That’s what I meant. You need to
be able to find these videos, because you’re going to be comparing your
old and new videos. You got it?
Seth: It’s downloading.
Ms. A: By the end of today, you need those in a folder. [referring to an electronic
folder]
Cornelison: You can’t play the video, but you can copy and paste the link to the video.
Ms. A: Should be ok. You’re going to make constructive reviews. You’re going to
type them. They have to be constructive. I’m going to read them. I’m
going to judge them based on what you wrote. I want you to spread out
around this room and keep the volume low, and watch the video one at a
time.
Students whispered, mumbled, and talked to each other. Ms. Anderson walked back to her desk.
Students were on their iPads, scrolling their iPads up and down. Ms. Anderson then instructed
the class, “Alright guys, move out!” Ms. Anderson gave her students 20 minutes to work on their
projects. Students left the lecture area and walked over to the rear lab area. Ms. Anderson asked
the students to divide into groups, “You can’t all go from here to there. Find a corner. Are you all
together?” The students then divided themselves up into groups as they worked on their project.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

133

I examined closely what the students were working on. Larry and Lauren (a pair) were
watching a video showing Larry’s presentation. They took notes on their individual iPads while
watching a video on another iPad. Haden and Elmer (a pair) were also working together. Haden
searched for an image on Google using his iPad, while Elmer watched Haden’s iPad. Seth and
Ethan (a pair) sat next to each other and were on their individual iPads. Ethan played a video of
himself talking about his topic involving traffic and public transportation system. Meanwhile,
Seth typed on his iPad describing Ethan’s performance on the video. Ten minutes into the peer
review activity relating CRP videos, Ms. Anderson told the class,
Ms. A: The videos are due tomorrow.
Seth: Can we just turn it in now?
Ms. A: You can if you want to.
In response to Ms. Anderson’s comment, Seth went on Moodle, and then on “Anderson_NGSS 1
LMS” using his iPad. Seth minimized the window on his iPad and went back to the narrative
portion of his project. While attempting to transfer some digital files, Seth exclaimed, “Ooops, I
just Airdropped it to somebody.” Ms. Anderson responded,
Ms. A: Ha ha I hope it’s something academic. When do we start the presentation?
Students: Tomorrow
Ms. A: Wednesday?
Students: Tomorrow
Ms. A: We have 5 more minutes together.
Seth went back to his original seat and continued to work on his iPad. Seth attempted to send his
presentation video via Moodle but had technical difficulties. Seth stated,
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

134

Seth: Ms. Anderson, I tried uploading the videos, all three, but it [the videos]
crashed.
Ms. A: It crashed? On Moodle? [Ms. Anderson then walked over to Seth, stood in
front of him, and looked down at his iPad]
Seth: Yeah
Ms. A: But they’re all [the videos] should be all on there.
While Ms. Anderson helped Seth, Miguel asked,
Miguel: Ms. Anderson, since we’re working on glucose, can we make a model of
glucose?
Ms. A: Yeah [responded to Miguel as she erased the white board]
Seth: Ms. Anderson, can I just email you the files? It crashed on me twice.
Ms. A: See if you [Seth] can go on Safari. Tomorrow, we will start with the
second part of the quiz. Ladies and gents, stop wiggling [while Ms.
Anderson was giving instructions, students were typing on their iPads,
putting their iPads away, and talking to each other]…second we are going
to talk about stoichiometry, for the second half of tomorrow. I’ll have the
grades up today for the quiz. I’ll have the grades up by tomorrow. When
you come in tomorrow, put those models by the waves back there. If your
number is called tomorrow and if you’re not ready, then you’re late.
After giving the instructions, Ms. Anderson dismissed the class. Students then got up and left the
classroom.
Here, Ms. Anderson utilized student previous work (e.g., Do’s and Don’ts list) to support
students as they participated in a peer review activity during class. The evidence presented here
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

135

(Day 2) is the continuation of the CRP activity that I discussed in the previous section (Day 1).
Through peer review, Ms. Anderson’s students provided feedback to the other students in an
attempt to help them improve their work. Ms. Anderson’s use of peer review provided the
students an opportunity to cooperate and work together using technological tools as they worked
on CRP. Ms. Anderson’s students focused on providing feedback on the presentation during peer
review, as opposed to developing scientific knowledge through providing feedback on the
content of the CRP presentation. Bartholomew et al. (2004) assert that the teacher practices
collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge by having students work in groups
reflecting the multidisciplinary and collaborative nature of science. They (2004) posit, “new
knowledge claims are generally shared and, to be accepted by the community, must survive a
process of critical peer review” (p. 658). I expand on the “collaborative nature of science” after
analyzing first how Ms. Anderson structured the peer review class activity. Ms. Anderson
initiated the peer review activity by prompting the class,
I want you to find a quiet place for you two…I want you to use the “Pros and Cons” you
came up with before…You’re going to make constructive reviews. You’re going to type
them. They have to be constructive. I’m going to read them. I’m going to judge them
based on what you wrote. I want you to spread out around this room and keep the volume
low, and watch the video one at a time…
Ms. Anderson structured the peer review activity by grouping the students and giving them
instructions to work on the given task. Through in-class peer review, Ms. Anderson gave the
students the resources, physical space, and time to work in pairs using technology to facilitate
interaction and exchange of ideas. Ms. Anderson provided the electronic resources online (e.g.,
Anderson_NGSS 1 LMS) where students could access the “Do’s and Don’ts list” and the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

136

student-generated videos at their convenience. Ms. Anderson provided students the physical
space in the classroom by having them work in pairs. Students sat next to each other in an
attempt to produce together what they needed to accomplish during peer review. Although the
students did not communicate verbally with each other during peer review, they played videos,
took notes, searched the Internet for images, exchanged digital documents, and uploaded them
electronically using their individual iPads. During this activity, students were cooperative
participants when generating work, but passive communicators during the peer review portion of
the class. Ms. Anderson gave the students 20 minutes during class to make “constructive
reviews” in preparation for student presentation the next day. Although Ms. Anderson informed
the students that “they have to be constructive” during peer review, she did not provide exemplar
work samples (e.g., exemplars of “constructive” feedback) to help students meet the
expectations. Ms. Anderson asked the students to provide feedback to each other without being
clear on the quality of feedback. Ms. Anderson assumed that when students used their “Do’s and
Don’ts list,” they would be able to provide the necessary feedback to help them improve their
presentations.
During Day 2 of CRP in-class activity, it was evident that Ms. Anderson utilized the peer
review approach to support students as they worked on the CRP. Although the peer review
activity provided an opportunity for students to cooperate and work on the task that Ms.
Anderson had asked them to do using technological tools, the peer review activity did not
support students in the development of scientific knowledge. The students cooperated, worked
together, and provided feedback to each other using technological tools. However, it was not
evident that Ms. Anderson or her students demonstrated the features of authentic scientific
inquiry through cooperation during peer review. The peer review conducted by Ms. Anderson’s
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

137

students allowed them to provide feedback on the execution of the presentations, but not on the
scientific content of the presentations. The teaching and learning practices demonstrated here did
not reflect the features of what students and teachers would portray during authentic scientific
inquiry. Chinn and Malhotra (2002) describe how scientists construct knowledge through
collaboration, “Scientists construct knowledge in collaborative groups. Scientists build on
previous research by many scientists. Institutional norms are established through expert review
processes and exemplary models of research” (p. 188). Ms. Anderson’s students may have
constructed ideas using collaborative efforts, but the constructed ideas focused on the
performance of the presentation. It was not evident that Ms. Anderson encouraged her students to
focus on the scientific merit of their presentations or projects during peer review. Ms.
Anderson’s students did not build on previous research by many scientists. Rather, they created a
project involving literature research not necessarily advancing the current scientific research.
Although Ms. Anderson’s students participated in the review process, it was not evident that
institutional norms were established. It was not evident that Ms. Anderson’s students used peer-
reviewed scientific articles when they worked on CRP. Ms. Anderson did not encourage her
students to include institutionalized procedures found in science such as skillful review of
articles by experts. Based on the evidence here, Ms. Anderson and her students demonstrated the
features of cooperation to accomplish the tasks determined by Ms. Anderson, but not the features
of collaboration involving social construction of knowledge during authentic scientific inquiry
(Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
I take this opportunity to critique the ways Ms. Anderson and her students demonstrated
some elements of collaboration. Although Ms. Anderson and her students demonstrated
cooperation as they worked on CRP and participated in peer review, they did not engage in
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

138

argument from evidence. Rather, their focus during peer review was on the performance of the
presentation. Ms. Anderson informed the class, “You’re going to make constructive
reviews…They have to be constructive.” Creating constructive reviews, if Ms. Anderson’s
students created them, did not promote active discourse or involve cognitively demanding tasks
among Ms. Anderson’s students. In order for students to think critically and experience authentic
scientific inquiry during collaborative peer review, they must practice how to engage in argument
from evidence. The NRC (2012) justifies the importance of student engagement in argument
from evidence,
…they [students] should learn how to evaluate critically the scientific arguments of
others and present counterarguments. Learning to argue scientifically offers students not
only an opportunity to use their scientific knowledge in justifying an explanation and in
identifying the weaknesses in others’ arguments but also to build their own knowledge
and understanding. Constructing and critiquing arguments are both a core process of
science and one that supports science education… (p. 73)
Alexander (2005), Chi (2009), and Resnick, Michaels, and O’Connor (2010) support this notion
and suggest that interaction with others is the most cognitively effective way of learning. Such
interaction, however, must involve features demonstrated in authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn
& Malhotra, 2002). Engagement in scientific practices (NRC, 2012), such as engagement in
argument from evidence, was lacking in Ms. Anderson’s CRP and peer review activities. The
NRC (2012) declares that “students cannot fully understand scientific and engineering ideas
without engaging in the practices of inquiry and the discourses by which such ideas are
developed and refined” (p. 218).

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

139

Conclusion
Using the conceptual framework in this case study, I examined and analyzed Ms.
Anderson’s teaching practices and how she used the technology to support inquiry in her
Integrated Science class. In this investigation, I focused on the ways Ms. Anderson demonstrated
her teaching practices in the context of instructional delivery, inquiry process, contextualized
learning, and collaboration. The data showed that Ms. Anderson used time and student routines
to support simple inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) in her class. Ms. Anderson used
technological tools to facilitate students’ participation in scientific processes, but the activities
did not foster complex thinking by the students. The data showed that Ms. Anderson’s students
performed simple inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), not authentic scientific inquiry, as students
engaged in the various stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). The data showed that
although Ms. Anderson used analogies to help her students make meaning of balancing chemical
equations, Ms. Anderson’s students did not experience a curriculum that was relevant to their
lives and interests through Ms. Anderson’s use of analogies. The data further showed that Ms.
Anderson’s overemphasis on a single set of procedures such as balancing chemical equations,
rather than making connections to other science concepts and bigger ideas, did not support
authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). The data also showed that Ms. Anderson
and her students cooperated and produced together using technological tools to facilitate
interaction and exchange of ideas as they worked on the CRP. However, neither Ms. Anderson
nor her students demonstrated the development of scientific knowledge in pursuit of supporting
authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
Ms. Anderson used time and student routines to support inquiry in her Integrated Science
class. The data showed that Ms. Anderson utilized time to support simple inquiry (Chinn &
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

140

Malhotra, 2002) in science with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal
representations. Ms. Anderson intentionally structured the class time in segments and deployed
instructional scaffolding in each. In the beginning segments of the class, Ms. Anderson
structured her lesson with a sufficient amount of time, allowing her to provide her students with
the instructional strategy necessary to enable them to engage in independent practice in inquiry.
In the later segments of the class, Ms. Anderson used the time for student independent practice
with room for student interactions. Ms. Anderson organized the class so her students worked in
groups while she engaged in small conversations with them. The data also showed that Ms.
Anderson used student routines (Leinhardt et al., 1987), such as management and support
routines, to support simple inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) in science with opportunities to
interpret and construct multimodal representations. Ms. Anderson’s use of management routines
promoted her class to transition from one activity to the next. Ms. Anderson’s use of
management routines set the stage for inquiry by orienting students before engaging in the class
activity. Ms. Anderson used support routines through the application of technological tools to
support the students’ ability to interact with the ideas that she wanted them to interact with. Ms.
Anderson used technology-based teaching tools to specify the actions necessary for a learning-
teaching exchange to take place. Although Ms. Anderson used time and student routines to
support inquiry in science, the data showed that she engaged her students in simple inquiry
(Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), not authentic scientific inquiry, which were evident in the student
cognitive processes involved during the class activities.
The data demonstrated that although Ms. Anderson used technological tools to facilitate
students’ participation in scientific processes in her Integrated Science class, the activities did not
foster complex thinking by the students. Ms. Anderson generated the questioning, rather than
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

141

promoted the students’ use of questioning during the inquiry process in class. The data showed
that Ms. Anderson used technological tools to engage her students with questionings during the
various stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). During the orientation stage, Ms. Anderson
used questionings to activate student prior knowledge and communicate information to students
that she believed was important to set them up for the next activity. During the exploration stage,
Ms. Anderson gave the students the opportunity to make an observation of a chemical reaction,
and then encouraged them to propose a hypothesis. During the concept formation stage, Ms.
Anderson helped the students generate their hypothesis and conclusion, but did not provide the
opportunity for her students to invent the concepts themselves. The data showed that Ms.
Anderson used technology as a classroom presentation tool. In contrast, Ms. Anderson’s students
used technology as a productivity tool, but not to foster cognitively demanding tasks relating
inquiry. Neither Ms. Anderson nor her students used technology to invent the concepts or engage
analytically with the data during the concept formation stage of the learning cycle. The data
showed that Ms. Anderson’s class demonstrated the orientation, exploration, and concept
formation stages, but did not exhibit the features of the application or closure stages of the
learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). The data further showed that Ms. Anderson’s students performed
simple inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), not authentic scientific inquiry, as students engaged in
the various stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005).
Ms. Anderson used analogies as part of her instructional strategy to help her students
make meaning of certain science concepts. Although Ms. Anderson used analogies to help her
students make meaning of balancing chemical equations, Ms. Anderson’s students did not
experience a curriculum that was relevant to their lives and interests through Ms. Anderson’s use
of analogies. Ms. Anderson did not connect teaching and curriculum to her students’ personal,
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

142

family, or community experiences and skills. Ms. Anderson presented information during class
in a decontextualized, drill-like manner, in which scientific concepts were presented in isolation
(Doherty et al., 2003). The data showed that Ms. Anderson’s overemphasis on a single set of
procedures such as balancing chemical equations, rather than making connections to other
science concepts and bigger ideas, did not support authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002). Although Ms. Anderson’s students conducted research through the CRP to
experience the world beyond their own context using technology, they did not participate in
authentic scientific inquiry. The data demonstrated that Ms. Anderson engaged her students with
standard scientific explanations of the world by asking them to describe or explain the chemistry-
based topics through Internet-based research. Ms. Anderson, however, did not ask her students to
demonstrate their own understanding of the scientific topics through the development of their
explanations of phenomena.
The data showed that Ms. Anderson and her students cooperated and produced together
using technological tools to facilitate interaction and exchange of ideas as they worked on the
CRP. Ms. Anderson directed her students to work intentionally in partnerships where they
cooperated and produced together what she had intended them to create using technological
tools. Ms. Anderson demonstrated the use of collaborative learning strategy by being flexible
with the ways the student groupings worked on the CRP. Ms. Anderson’s use of peer review
during class provided the students an opportunity to cooperate and work together using
technological tools as they worked on the CRP. However, neither Ms. Anderson nor her students
demonstrated the development of scientific knowledge in pursuit of supporting authentic
scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Ms. Anderson’s students focused on providing
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

143

feedback on the presentation during peer review as opposed to developing scientific knowledge
through providing feedback on the content of the CRP presentation.
Case Study #2: Mrs. Brown–Eighth Grade Science at Oahu Middle School
The Oahu Middle School (OMS) is located in Honolulu on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii.
At OMS, each student in the seventh and eighth grade is issued a laptop for use at home and
school.
At the time of the interview, Mrs. Brown had been teaching for 13 years. Prior to
teaching at OMS, Mrs. Brown had taught high school at a public charter school for 5 years. Mrs.
Brown also taught middle school at a private school for 4 years. At the time of her participation
in this study, Mrs. Brown had been teaching middle school at OMS for 4 years. For the purpose
of this study, I observed Mrs. Brown’s eighth grade science class. Mrs. Brown had 27 students in
her eighth grade science class, of which 13 were boys and 14 were girls.
Research Question: What teaching practices, with emphasis on how technology is used, do
teachers employ to support inquiry in a science class?
Mrs. Brown used time and resources, including teaching-based technological tools, to
support productive learning of science with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal
representations in her eighth grade science class. Mrs. Brown deployed resources such as
manipulatives and teaching-based technological tools to help students interpret scientific
concepts and construct multimodal representations. The data showed that over the course of the
class investigation on Earth’s energy budget, Mrs. Brown’s students performed simple inquiry,
not authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
The data showed that although Mrs. Brown used technological tools to engage students in
scientific processes, the activities did not foster complex thinking by the students. Mrs. Brown
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

144

asked her students to engage with evidence through data collection, but did not engage her
students with questioning, hypothesis, or construction of their own ideas. The data also showed
that Mrs. Brown engaged her students in a simple observation type of inquiry (Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002) using a teacher-centered approach. Mrs. Brown and her students demonstrated
the features of the orientation and exploration stages, but did not demonstrate the features of the
concept formation, application, or closure stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005).
It was evident that when contextualizing the lesson, Mrs. Brown paid attention to her
students’ responses during discourse, and used them as a new context for learning. Mrs. Brown
made curriculum-to-curriculum and curriculum-to-self connections (Wyatt, 2016) when teaching
Standby Power. To contextualize the lesson on Standby Power, Mrs. Brown utilized teaching-
based technological tools. When contextualizing the lesson, Mrs. Brown engaged her students in
simple inquiry, not authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
Mrs. Brown and her students collaborated as they created a physical 3-D model relating
energy equilibrium. Mrs. Brown and her students used their phones and laptops to collect data
and document their constructed 3-D models. The students also used Google Docs to share files
with each other and complete the assigned tasks. In the construction of the 3-D model activity on
energy equilibrium, it was evident that Mrs. Brown employed technology to supplement her
instruction and engage the students collaboratively.
Instructional Delivery
In this study, I defined instructional delivery as manipulation and instructional
technology strategies that provide students with the time, routines, and resources to support
productive learning of science with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal
representations. Mrs. Brown used time and resources, including teaching-based technological
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

145

tools, to interpret and construct multimodal representations in her eighth grade science class. For
the purposes of my analysis, I am going to focus on one specific lesson demonstrating the way
Mrs. Brown structured the class time. In this lesson, Mrs. Brown structured the class time into
three parts. In the first part, Mrs. Brown spent 9 minutes activating student prior knowledge and
orienting the students before conducting a hands-on investigation. In the second part, Mrs.
Brown spent 32 minutes facilitating student interactions and providing students sufficient time to
engage in active learning. In this block of time, Mrs. Brown provided students opportunities to
interpret and construct multimodal representations of the Earth’s energy budget using different
learning modalities (e.g., visual, auditory, tactile/kinesthetic). The class investigation also
required students to use mathematics as they investigated the Earth’s energy budget in small
groups. In the third part (the following class period), Mrs. Brown spent 40 minutes providing her
students an opportunity to create a physical model of the scientific concepts relating energy
equilibrium, an extension of the previous activity. In this block of time, Mrs. Brown engaged her
students in active learning when she asked her students to create a physical model and take a
photo of it as evidence of their work. Mrs. Brown also asked her students to answer the
supplemental questions on Google Docs augmenting the activity. Mrs. Brown deployed
manipulatives and teaching-based technological tools to help students interpret scientific
concepts and construct multimodal representations over the course of the lesson. Although Mrs.
Brown used time and resources, including teaching-based technological tools, to interpret and
construct multimodal representations in her eighth grade science class, it was evident that Mrs.
Brown supported simple inquiry, not authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
I examine and analyze the evidence in the subsequent sections, focusing on how Mrs.
Brown taught the concepts relating energy flow and balance in her eighth grade science class.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

146

Mrs. Brown implemented a hands-on activity involving the use of pennies to illustrate the text
and graphics describing the Earth’s energy budget. In this class investigation, the pennies
represented the energy units from the sun and the students were required to stack the pennies to
“account” for Earth’s energy budget. Stacking the pennies accounted for the percentage of the
solar energy being reflected and absorbed by the Earth. I include a copy of the “Energy Balance
Recording Sheet” (Appendix F) to show the handout artifact that students needed to complete for
this activity. I also include a photo (Appendix G) to show how the students stacked the pennies
representing their construction of a tangible model of energy accounting in this class
investigation.
Part 1 (7:56- 8:05 AM)
Mrs. Brown structured the class time into three parts to interpret and construct
multimodal representations. In the first part, Mrs. Brown spent 9 minutes activating student prior
knowledge and orienting the students before conducting a hands-on activity. Mrs. Brown used
cues and questions to activate student prior knowledge. Marzano et al. (2001b) assert that using
cues, teachers can provide students with a preview of concepts that students are about to
experience. They (2001b) also posit that questions are effective learning tools even when asked
before a learning experience, to create a “mental set” (p. 114) with which students process the
learning experience. After activating student prior knowledge, Mrs. Brown oriented the students
to prepare them for the hands-on investigation. Scanlon, Anastopoulou, Kerawalla, and
Mulholland (2011) describe that during orientation the learning topic is introduced by the
environment, or provided by the teacher or defined by the learner. While orienting the students,
Mrs. Brown introduced the purpose of the investigation and guided them as they read the
instructions.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

147

7:56-8:00 AM (4 minutes)
Mrs. Brown asked the class, “Today is the 24
th
, right?” The students responded, “The
25
th
.” All students were seated and had their individual laptops out. The students had Google
Docs on their laptops and waited for Mrs. Brown to get them started. Mrs. Brown projected the
agenda on the white board:
Agenda 4/25
• Following the Energy Flow
• Energy Balance Instructions
During the first 4 minutes into class, Mrs. Brown activated prior knowledge using cues
and by asking students questions. Mrs. Brown prompted the students, “Okay, while you are
getting your stuff open, class let me ask you a question to think about. What is the main driver of
our climate?” Marco answered, “The sun?” while another student had a different answer, “The
clouds.” Although Marco answered Mrs. Brown’s question correctly, he sounded unsure and
waited for the teacher’s response. Mrs. Brown acknowledged Marco’s answer by saying, “So the
main energy comes from the sun.” Mrs. Brown then asked a different question, yet related to the
topic, “What do we call the spectrum, the electromagnetic spectrum?” Mrs. Brown used a cue by
asking, “You guys remember this?” Mrs. Brown augmented her question by pointing at the
illustration that was projected on the white board. Mrs. Brown asked another question to evoke
previously taught concepts, “How does that energy travel?” Marco quickly answered Mrs.
Brown’s question, “Wavelengths!” Mrs. Brown immediately acknowledged Marco’s response,
“Yes, waves!” Mrs. Brown then used Marco’s response to ask a question that introduced the
main scientific concept and was important for students to learn in the next activity, “So what
happens to that energy when it reaches the earth?” Mrs. Brown used a cue indicating the plurality
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

148

of answers, “There’s a lot of possible answers.” Mrs. Brown also reminded the students that they
had talked about the concept in the previous class, “We talked a little about it on Friday.” Aiden
answered, “Some of the energy gets absorbed by [the] Earth.” Mrs. Brown acknowledged
Aiden’s answer by paraphrasing it, “So some of the energy gets absorbed by the land, the water.”
Mrs. Brown ended the short discourse by introducing the purpose of the class investigation, “So
what we will do is we will investigate how energy is transferred on Earth.” Here, Mrs. Brown’s
use of cues and questioning activated student prior knowledge (Marzano et al., 2001b) and
provided transition for the next activity. In addition, the use of questioning provided an
opportunity for Mrs. Brown to make a curriculum-to-curriculum connection (Wyatt, 2016)
between what was covered in class prior and what the students were about to learn. Campbell
and Campbell (2009) support Marzano et al. (2001b) assertion and maintain:
Engaging students’ preexisting knowledge or misperceptions offers teachers one way to
informally diagnose their students’ baseline. This can serve as the critical first step in the
learning cycle of the classroom. By meeting students where they are, teachers can make
informed, strategic decisions about the content to be taught. (p. 12)
8:00-8:05 AM (5 minutes)
During the next 5 minutes, Mrs. Brown oriented the students before conducting the
hands-on investigation. While Mrs. Brown distributed the “Energy Balance Recording Sheet,”
the students gathered the needed materials (e.g., coloring markers) for the activity. After
distributing the worksheets, Mrs. Brown walked back to the front of the classroom and projected
“Earth Energy Budget Activity” on the white board. Mrs. Brown oriented her students by asking
them to read the instructions before conducting the investigation. Mrs. Brown asked one of the
students, “Trisen, can you read the instructions, please?” After Trisen read the instructions that
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

149

were projected on the white board, Mrs. Brown went over the instructions while the students
looked at the digital version of the instructions on their individual laptops. Mrs. Brown had
shared the digital file of the “Earth Energy Budget Activity” with her students using Google
Drive. To make sure her students were reading the instructions before conducting the
investigation, Mrs. Brown asked for her students’ attention, “Class, hello, listen, are you
listening? Okay, stop typing for a second. Hold on. Let’s read together to get you started.” Mrs.
Brown asked William to read the projected information relating the “Earth’s Energy Budget:
Introduction” on the white board. William read the information while seated. Mrs. Brown asked
further, “Equilibrium. Equilibrium means what? Equal?” Students responded simultaneously
with varying answers. Mrs. Brown called Omar, and then Cathy, to continue reading the rest of
the introduction. I include the last paragraph of the introduction page (Appendix H, p. 3) to
contextualize the class activity, “Earth’s energy balance is complex, and includes many
concurrent processes. In this activity, you will break these processes into three steps in order to
simplify the processes and understand how it all fits together.” The three steps were incoming
solar radiation, surface energy budget, and the atmosphere’s energy budget. In this block of time,
Mrs. Brown focused on the incoming solar radiation and provided an opportunity for her
students to investigate the process. It was evident in this block of time that Mrs. Brown utilized
the class time and technological tools to orient students and introduce the investigation. Pedaste
et al. (2015) assert that during orientation, the teacher introduces the topic and the goal is “to get
the learner started with a new topic or investigation” (p. 52). Mrs. Brown intentionally asked
students during this block of time to read the instructions and guided them as a way to orient
them.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

150

It is important to note that although Mrs. Brown oriented her students before engaging
them in an investigation, Mrs. Brown did not “orient” the students in the context of inquiry-
based learning framework (Pedaste et al., 2015). They (2015) define orientation as “the process
of stimulating curiosity about a topic and addressing a learning challenge through a problem
statement” (p. 54). It was not evident in this block of time that Mrs. Brown stimulated curiosity
about a topic or addressed a learning challenge through a problem statement. Mrs. Brown’s
students did not generate a problem statement at this point either.
Part 2 (8:05-8:37 AM)
In the second part, Mrs. Brown spent 32 minutes facilitating student interactions and
providing students sufficient time to engage in active learning. Mrs. Brown provided her students
opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal representations of the Earth’s energy budget
using different learning modalities (e.g., visual, auditory, tactile/kinesthetic). The activity also
required students to use mathematics as they investigated the Earth’s energy budget in small
groups. In this block of time, Mrs. Brown initiated student engagement in active learning.
Bonwell and Eison (1991) state that active learning is defined as anything that “involves students
in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing” (p. 2). For the remainder of the 32
minutes, Mrs. Brown initiated student engagement and facilitated student interactions in active
learning using different learning modalities. I examine and analyze the evidence in fragments
(e.g., 4, 9, 19 minutes) as a function of time during the 32 minutes.
8:05-8:09 AM (4 minutes)
During the 4 minutes after orienting the class, Mrs. Brown prompted her students to get
started on the investigation. In this block of time, Mrs. Brown prompted her students to begin the
investigation tasks, “So you should be coloring now. You should be coloring the incoming.” Mrs.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

151

Brown referred to the “Incoming Radiation” (colored blue) graphics in the handout. In response
to Mrs. Brown’s cues, the students performed the initial tasks of the investigation (e.g., colored
the handout, sharpened the coloring pencils). This 4-minute block of time served as transition
between orienting students and their active engagement in the investigation. Mrs. Brown also
utilized this time to prepare the materials (e.g., counted the pennies) that students needed for the
next part of the investigation.
8:09-8:18 AM (9 minutes)
During the next 9 minutes, Mrs. Brown monitored the different student groups as they
engaged in the investigation tasks. According to the overview of the energy pathways page
(Appendix H):
Begin this activity by gaining an overview of the energy pathways. Using the graphic
shown below, identify the incoming solar radiation. On your printed version of the
graphic, color the incoming radiation blue. Next, color the arrows representing outgoing
radiation red, and the latent and sensible heat arrows orange. (p. 4)
Marco asked Mrs. Brown for clarification, “Do we just copy this?” Mrs. Brown responded to
Marco’s question and also informed the class of the next step, “Yes, color the incoming radiation
blue. The first person in your group to finish coloring, please come up to the front and pick up
the coins.” In this block of time, Mrs. Brown moved around the classroom and made sure that the
students had the materials they needed. For example, Mrs. Brown walked to Omar’s group and
asked if they needed an orange-colored marker. Mrs. Brown then walked over to Diamond’s
group and asked, “So you guys don’t have any orange?” Mrs. Brown immediately left
Diamond’s group and walked toward Kalani’s group. At the same time, several students walked
around the classroom and exchanged markers with the other groups. Mrs. Brown then reminded
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

152

the students, “So count your pennies and make sure you have a hundred.” In this block of time,
Mrs. Brown’s movement around the classroom provided an opportunity for her to monitor
whether students had the tools they needed to conduct the investigation. While Mrs. Brown
monitored the different groups, it was evident that the students were not restricted in their seats
as they performed the investigation tasks. While the students were coloring their “Incoming
Solar Radiation” handouts, several students got up and counted pennies. For example, Emilia
stood up, walked to the front of the classroom, and grabbed a cup of coins. Aiden got up, walked
toward, and stood in front of Diamond. Diamond was seated and counted the coins. Aiden then
counted the coins while standing up. Gina watched both Aiden and Diamond count coins. Mason
continued to color his worksheet. Aiden and Mason were counting coins while standing up. Gina
and Diamond were also counting coins with Aiden and Mason, but were seated. The way Mrs.
Brown and her students moved around the classroom, including their interactions with each
other, initiated chaos in this block of time. In summary, this 9-minute block of time provided an
opportunity for Mrs. Brown to monitor her students’ engagement in the activity. Mrs. Brown
verbally and physically engaged with her students as she guided them in this part of the class
investigation. In this block of time, it was also evident that the students interacted with each
other as they performed the tasks in the investigation. Mrs. Brown used technological tools (e.g.,
projector, Google Drive, student laptops) to indicate the tasks that she wanted her students to
perform.
8:18-8:37 AM (19 minutes)
For the remainder of the 32 minutes, Mrs. Brown provided her students opportunities to
interpret and construct multimodal representations of how the Earth’s climate system balances
the energy budget. Mrs. Brown prompted the students, “Class, listen please. Now, you are going
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

153

to start this activity as a group. William, are you guys listening?” Diamond commented, “We
have one hundred [pennies]!” Mrs. Brown responded, “Okay, you are set!” Mrs. Brown provided
her students opportunities to learn about energy pathways in an active learning environment. The
instructions for the “Part 1: Incoming Solar Radiation” (Appendix H) activity described:
Acquire 100 objects (i.e., pennies) to represent the energy units. These pennies represent
all of the solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere from the sun, or 100%. Start at
the upper left of the energy balance diagram. Fill in the box next to the sun with the
number 100. Then, stack the pennies on the diagram according to what happens to each
unit of energy as it travels through the atmosphere on its way to Earth’s surface. Separate
the pennies into five columns and place them on the papers as follows…Next, add up and
record the total units in your student notebook…” (p. 6)
The student-student interactions increased as students engaged further in the investigation tasks.
The noise level the students made also increased due to the noise from talking to each other and
shaking of the pennies. The students focused their attention more on each other and less on Mrs.
Brown as they performed the investigation tasks. For example, while Agnes read the instructions
to Leilani, Gloria lifted up her laptop as she yelled at Cathy the instructions, which made Daisy
laugh. Diamond made four stacks of pennies on their group’s table, while Mason and Blaise
watched her. In the meantime, Mrs. Brown walked over to Gina’s group and asked, “Can any of
you start writing down the numbers?” In response to Mrs. Brown’s suggestion, the students
started recording their data on their worksheets. Mrs. Brown then left Gina’s group and walked
over to Gloria’s group. Mrs. Brown walked back over to help Daisy. Daisy had a couple of
stacks of pennies and recorded her data on the worksheet, while Kaimana stacked the pennies.
The students also utilized their laptops as they read the instructions. For example, while Aiden
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

154

made a stack of pennies, his group members wrote down the information on their worksheets as
they read the instructions on their laptops. Trisen, Heidi, and Dayna wrote the data down on their
worksheets as well. Dayna scrolled her laptop up and down, while Trisen read the information on
his laptop and looked at Heidi’s laptop. Trisen and Heidi talked to each other as they read the
information on their laptops.
In summary, as the lesson progressed, it was evident in this block of time (32 minutes)
that Mrs. Brown’s instruction shifted from a teacher-centered to a more student-centered. Mrs.
Brown provided her students opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal representations
of the Earth’s energy budget using different learning modalities. In this lesson, the use of
designated colors provided the students an opportunity to interpret the different energy pathways
(e.g., blue for incoming radiation, orange for latent/sensible heat, red for outgoing radiation). The
use of pennies provided the students an opportunity to construct a physical model representing
how to “account” for Earth’s energy budget. This class investigation also required students to use
mathematics as they counted the pennies representing the energy reflected and absorbed by the
different parts of the Earth. In this block of time, Mrs. Brown initiated student engagement and
facilitated student interactions in active learning using different learning modalities. Bonwell and
Eison (1991) assert that in an environment where active learning is taking place, “students are
involved in more than listening…less emphasis is placed on transmitting information and more
on developing students’ skills…students are engaged in activities (e.g., reading, discussing,
writing)” (p. 2). They (1991) posit that class activities such as writing, discussions, and
cooperative learning show strong positive effects on learning. It was evident that Mrs. Brown’s
students demonstrated these features of active learning during the 32 minutes of class
investigation.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

155

Part 3 (Day 2, 7:54-8:34 AM)
In the third part, Mrs. Brown spent 40 minutes providing her students an opportunity to
create a physical model of the scientific concepts relating energy equilibrium, an extension of the
previous activity. In this block of time, Mrs. Brown engaged her students in active learning when
she asked them to create physical models and take photos of the models as evidence of their
work. Mrs. Brown also asked her students to answer the supplemental questions on Google Docs
augmenting the activity. Mrs. Brown deployed manipulatives and teaching-based technological
tools to help students interpret scientific concepts and construct multimodal representations over
the course of the investigation.
7:54-8:00 AM (6 minutes)
During the first 6 minutes of Day 2, Mrs. Brown initiated the class investigation by
explicitly introducing the goals of the activity. Mrs. Brown spoke in front of the class,
Mrs. B: I got two main things that I want you guys to finish. One of them is the
penny worksheet. What is the point of creating a model?
William: To make a visual aid.
Mrs. B: Visual aid? You’re creating a…[a student interrupted Mrs. Brown and she
was unable to complete her sentence]
S: To show the equilibrium.
S: Input and output.
Mrs. B: If you are in an equilibrium, what does that mean? [the students opened up
their laptops while Mrs. Brown talked] I want you guys to create models. I
want you guys to take pictures this time. I want you guys to make 3-D
effects of the model, so take pictures straight on. The link is in the Docs
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

156

[Google Docs]…so use your resources…your pennies are here…so
someone needs to come up.
In response to Mrs. Brown’s instructions, Marco and Omar stood up, walked over, and grabbed a
cup of pennies from Mrs. Brown’s desk. Meanwhile, Daisy got up and passed back the Energy
Balance Recording Sheet that Mrs. Brown had collected in the previous class. Mrs. Brown also
walked around and passed back the Energy Balance Recording Sheet. Daisy continued passing
back the recording sheets, while Mrs. Brown walked back to the front and projected the agenda
on the white board. While standing in front of the class, Mrs. Brown looked at her laptop, leaned
forward, and asked the class, “Can we talk about this?” Mrs. Brown referred to the Overview of
Energy Pathways (Appendix H, p. 4) shown on the white board. Mrs. Brown then walked toward
Kekoa’s group and answered a few questions. Mrs. Brown turned around and spoke, “Class, you
can take pictures.” Mrs. Brown walked over to Aiden’s group, immediately left, and walked back
over to her desk. Blaise counted the pennies as he stood in front of Diamond. Mrs. Brown
informed the students, “Class, I’m okay with you guys using your phone. You can send yourself
an email? I did not know you could do that. How do you do that?” Kekoa responded, “I do that
all the time.”
In this 6-minute block of time (7:54-8:00 AM), Mrs. Brown oriented her students of the
class investigation as she physically engaged with them. Mrs. Brown introduced the goals and
was specific with the expectations. Mrs. Brown asked questions and used student responses to
evoke students to think about the investigative tasks. Mrs. Brown also encouraged her students to
use their phone mobile devices to take photos of their investigations. Scanlon et al. (2011) assert
that the teacher, in some cases, may provide the learning topic during orientation. Although Mrs.
Brown oriented her students about the class investigation, she did not orient them in the context
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

157

of inquiry-based learning framework, due to the absence of a problem statement in the student
investigation. Pedaste et al. (2015) posit that orientation, in the context of inquiry-based learning
framework, involves “addressing a learning challenge through a problem statement” (p. 54).
After orienting the students, Mrs. Brown interacted with and guided them as they performed the
investigative tasks.
8:00-8:34 AM (34 minutes)
During the next 34 minutes (8:00-8:34 AM) of Day 2, Mrs. Brown physically interacted
with students from different groups as they created physical models of the scientific concepts
relating energy equilibrium, an extension of the previous activity. In this block of time, Mrs.
Brown engaged her students in active learning when she asked them to create physical models
and take photos of the models as evidence. Mrs. Brown guided and assisted Gloria, Ruben,
Trisen, Aiden, Kekoa, and Diamond, when their corresponding groups explored during the
investigation. Mrs. Brown interacted with Gloria by demonstrating the placement of the pennies.
Mrs. Brown informed Gloria, “So you are going to take that and put 2.” Gloria then asked, “How
did you do that?” Mrs. Brown replied, “By reading the directions.” Mrs. Brown interacted with
Ruben and stated, “I need to see the docs [Google Docs].” When Mrs. Brown checked Ruben’s
laptop, apparently he did not have the classwork on his laptop and was working on something
else. Mrs. Brown interacted with Trisen and explained to him about “Part 2: Surface Energy
Budget” (Appendix H, p. 7). Trisen asked, “So that is Part 2?” Mrs. Brown replied, “Yes, that is
Part 2.” Mrs. Brown left and walked over to Agnes’ group. Gina grabbed Blaise’s phone and
took a photo of the stacked pennies. Diamond took another photo sideways. Mrs. Brown
interacted with Aiden and explained, “These are recycled [Mrs. Brown referred to the recycling
of energy in the context of the investigation]…these other ones [pennies] are not part of the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

158

process. You should have your 100 pennies.” Mrs. Brown engaged with Aiden’s group as
demonstrated by her counting and stacking of the pennies. Mrs. Brown then prompted Aiden’s
group, “So who is taking the picture?” The four students in Kekoa’s group were on their laptops.
Mrs. Brown interacted with and instructed Kekoa’s group, “Start working on the questions. Once
you are done taking pictures, start working on the questions.” Mrs. Brown interacted with
Diamond and Trisen when they raised their hands and asked her, “Mrs. Brown! Where do we put
the picture?” Mrs. Brown replied to their question with a short response, “At the bottom of the
doc [Google Docs].” Diamond and Trisen then performed the task based on Mrs. Brown’s
suggestion. In this block of time (34 minutes), it was evident that Mrs. Brown guided and
assisted her students as they engaged in the investigative tasks. Mrs. Brown’s interactions with
the students were brief; she checked up on students from different groups, prompted them what
to do next, and left to help another student group. Mrs. Brown demonstrated features of the
“praise, prompt, and leave” (Praise, Prompt, and Leave, 2007) approach to guiding and assisting
students on their tasks. Praise, Prompt, and Leave (2007) describes,
Simplify, simplify, simplify…It’s just a matter of getting to the point, putting the kid to
work and then leaving, so that you can go out and help another kid…And there can be
three parts, praise, prompt and leave. You know, what have we done right so far…And
then, what we do next? One liners…it’s really the art of that one liner. Here’s where we
are, this is what to do next, I’ll be back in a minute. (39:00)
Mrs. Brown guided and assisted her students during the explorative investigation using short and
clear prompts. Praise, Prompt, and Leave (2007) adds, “A good prompt is short and tells
students exactly what to do next” (35:30). Using the “praise, prompt, and leave” strategy (Praise,
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

159

Prompt, and Leave, 2007), Mrs. Brown guided and assisted her students without compromising
the active learning that was taking place.
In this same block of time (34 minutes), students also interacted with each other using
different learning modalities as they engaged in active learning. I focused my attention on
Mason’s group as they tried to figure out the correct amount of pennies needed to create a 3-D
model of the Earth’s energy budget. Mason’s group worked on the “Part 1: Incoming Solar
Radiation” (Appendix H) which describes,
Acquire 100 objects (i.e., pennies) to represent the energy units. These pennies represent
all of the solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere from the sun, or 100%...Then,
stack the pennies on the diagram according to what happens to each unit of energy as it
travels through the atmosphere on its way to Earth’s surface. Separate the pennies into
five columns and place them on the paper as follows: 23 units–reflected by the clouds
and atmosphere; 7 units–reflected by the Earth’s surface; 19 units–absorbed by the
atmosphere…; 4 units–absorbed by clouds; 47 units–absorbed by the Earth surfaces
(primarily ocean). (p. 6)
Mason and Blaise counted the pennies while seated. Gina stacked the pennies as she stood across
from Blaise and Diamond. Gina leaned over and asked,
Gina: Do we need more? Did I say 28? Mrs. Brown, can we grab more pennies?
Mrs. B: Yes, you can.
Gina: That is 49. [Blaise got up, walked to the front, and grabbed the pennies]
Mason, count them. [Gina walked to the front, grabbed the pennies, and
stood next to Blaise] This is 24. We do not need more. [Mason counted the
pennies]
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

160

Mason: There is [sic] 28.
Gina: So all of them are supposed to be 100?
Blaise: There is [sic] 49. I told you Diamond. [Gina grabbed Diamond’s laptop
and turned it facing her. Gina looked up and read the instructions]
Gina: 23 plus 7, plus 49. [Diamond grabbed the laptop and read the instructions]
It was evident that the group of Mason, Blaise, Gina, and Diamond had a difficulty completing
the task in this investigation for two reasons. First, Mason’s group did not acquire 100 pennies,
as stated in the instructions. Gina’s questions indicated that her group did not have 100 pennies
(e.g., Do we need more? Did I say 28? Mrs. Brown, can we grab more pennies?) Gina’s group
only had 49 pennies. Consequently, Mason’s group asked Mrs. Brown for more pennies. Blaise
and Gina grabbed more pennies from Mrs. Brown’s desk to account for the pennies they needed.
Secondly, Mason’s group did not separate the pennies into five columns, as described in the
instructions. Mason’s group did not clearly identify in their discourse if the 49 pennies had
represented the three of the five columns that they were supposed to create. It appeared that the
49 pennies that they had, represented the following: 23 units (reflected by the clouds and
atmosphere), 7 units (reflected by the Earth’s surface), and 19 units (absorbed by the
atmosphere). Gina and Diamond read the instructions further on Diamond’s laptop to find more
information as they performed the rest of the investigative tasks. Although Mrs. Brown answered
Gina’s question (e.g., “Mrs. Brown, can we grab more pennies?”), she was not directly involved
in Mason’s group discourse as the students worked on the investigations. The data showed that
Mrs. Brown supported a student-centered and active learning environment. Mrs. Brown provided
her students opportunities to perform the investigative tasks on their own through student
interactions, with little assistance from her, if any.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

161

Mrs. Brown asked the class, “Who else still has pennies?” Mrs. Brown walked from the
front of the class to Ruben’s group. At this time, the students were on their laptops. Gina opened
a document on her laptop. Mrs. Brown opened the same document file that Diamond was
working on earlier. Gina checked the photo and Diamond answered the questions found on Earth
Observation website using their laptops. The website contained the same questions that students
had worked on the week prior. Mrs. Brown informed the class, “Use the link to help facilitate
answering the questions.” Diamond talked to Gina, “You have to add everything.” Gina looked
at the “Climate and Earth’s Energy Balance” website, which contained the same questions that
the class had worked on previously. Blaise and Gina had two windows on their laptops. On the
first window, the laptop showed “Earth Lab” while the questions (Questions #8-22) were shown
on the second window.
In summary, Mrs. Brown utilized 40 minutes on Day 2 providing her students an
opportunity to create a physical model of the scientific concepts relating energy equilibrium, an
extension of the previous activity. Mrs. Brown also asked her students to take a photo of their
physical models as evidence, and answer the supplemental questions on Google Docs to augment
the activity. It was evident that Mrs. Brown engaged her students in active learning (Anthony,
1996). Anthony (1996) maintains that learning activities commonly identified as “active
learning” include “investigational work,…small group work, collaborative learning and
experiential learning” (p. 350). In this block of time, Mrs. Brown engaged her students in the
investigation through cooperative and small group interactions using different learning
modalities.
Here, Mrs. Brown supported the student use of technology during the Earth’s Energy
Budget Activity investigation. It was evident that Mrs. Brown supported her students’ use of
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

162

technology as productivity tools. The National Educational Technology Standards for Students
(NETS•S) describes technology as productivity tools as an area of technology competency
(Morphew, 2012),
Students demonstrate a sound understanding of technology concepts, systems, and
operations. Students understand and use technology systems, select and use applications
effectively and productively, troubleshoot systems and applications, and transfer current
knowledge to the learning of new technologies. (p. 300)
Mrs. Brown’s students understood and used technology systems as indicated by their usage of
the laptop augmenting their completion of the investigation tasks. Mrs. Brown’s students also
selected and used Google Docs to insert the photos of their 3-D models without the teacher’s
explanation on how to do so. When Mrs. Brown’s students took the photos of their 3-D models
using their phone mobile devices, they then inserted the photos into their Google Docs, and
proceeded in answering the activity questions, indicating an effective and productive use of
technology in the context of the class investigation. Although Mrs. Brown supported the use of
phone mobile devices to take a photo of the 3-D models, it appeared that she did not know how
to retrieve it via email. Mrs. Brown inquired, “Class, I’m okay with you guys using your phone.
You can send yourself an email? I did not know you could do that. How do you do that?” In
contrast, one student seemed to be familiar with this technology feature. Kekoa replied to Mrs.
Brown’s inquiry, “I do that all the time.” Although Trisen and Diamond asked Mrs. Brown
where to put the photos, it was not evident that the students, or the rest of the class, had a
difficulty retrieving the photos or inserting them into Google Docs (the how part) after taking
them. Over the course of the Earth’s Energy Budget Activity investigation, it was evident that
Mrs. Brown deployed manipulatives and teaching-based technological tools to help students
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

163

interpret scientific concepts and construct multimodal representations. In this one specific lesson
demonstrating the way Mrs. Brown structured the class time, although Mrs. Brown used time
and resources (including educational technological tools) to support productive learning of
science with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal representations in her eighth
grade science class, it was evident that Mrs. Brown supported simple inquiry, not authentic
scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
In this class investigation, Mrs. Brown did not foster the cognitive processes embodied in
authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). As described earlier, students generate
their own research questions, design studies, make observations, explain results, and develop
theories during authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Such features were not
evident during the class investigation examined here.
I asked Mrs. Brown for her thoughts about the extent of inquiry as she guided her
students in this activity. She explained:
So this isn't a great inquiry style of lesson where they don't really know the answer. They
don't know where all the energy goes, they really don't. They, we've talked about, well,
heat gets absorbed in the ocean, and we've talked about albedo and getting reflected by
the snow and ice. But how much? And so what? [Laughs] So this was an inquiry activity
for them to be able to actually get a visual of, “Oh! This is where this energy is going.”
Here, Mrs. Brown’s purpose was different than engaging her students in inquiry. Mrs. Brown
acknowledged that she was not having her students engage in “real” inquiry. Mrs. Brown knew
the activity was not intended to accomplish inquiry in the “true” sense of the word. Mrs. Brown
acknowledged that she was not providing them with an opportunity to engage in inquiry the way
she appeared to be defining it, as something where her students discover the answer to a
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

164

question. Mrs. Brown’s definition of inquiry was less robust than the definition of authentic
inquiry presented in this study. It appeared that Mrs. Brown’s definition of inquiry was limited to
discovery and not consistent with the more robust definition of authentic scientific inquiry
(Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Over the course of the class investigation, students colored the
diagrams and constructed a physical model to achieve the tasks that Mrs. Brown wanted them to
perform. Mrs. Brown justified that she had implemented the class investigation to visually and
quantitatively demonstrate the distribution of the Earth’s energy budget. However, although the
students performed the procedural tasks, Mrs. Brown did not provide her students the
opportunity to develop theoretical mechanisms with entities that were not directly observable
(e.g., energy), a feature of authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). As described
earlier, simple illustrations “do not provide evidence for a theory so much as they give the
teacher an example to use when explaining the theory” (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002, p. 186). In this
case, it was evident that Mrs. Brown’s students performed simple illustration, a type of simple
inquiry task, not authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
Inquiry Process
In this section, I examine and analyze one example of the way Mrs. Brown engaged her
students in the inquiry process using technology. In this study, I offered that teachers who
engaged their students in the inquiry process using technology guided and facilitated their
students’ complex thinking using technology to encourage students to actively engage with
questioning, hypothesis, ideas, evidence, and scientific process. The data showed that although
Mrs. Brown used technological tools to engage students in scientific process, the activities did
not foster complex thinking by the students. Mrs. Brown asked her students to engage with
evidence through data collection, but did not engage her students with student-initiated
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

165

questioning, hypothesis, or construction of their own ideas. The data also showed that Mrs.
Brown engaged her students in simple observation (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) type of inquiry
using a teacher-centered approach. Mrs. Brown and her students demonstrated the features of the
orientation and exploration stages, but did not demonstrate the features of the concept formation,
application, or closure stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005).
The evidence examined and analyzed here involved a two-day instructional period. In the
Contextualized Learning section, I describe how Mrs. Brown engaged her students in simple
observation (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) using the Energy Use Monitor Belkin device. Mrs. Brown
oriented her students as they engaged in simple observation (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) on Day 1.
Toward the end of the previous class (Day 1), Mrs. Brown introduced the Energy Use Monitor
Belkin device by physically demonstrating its features to the class. Mrs. Brown explained the
function of the Belkin device, turned it on, and described to the class the information/data shown
on the device. Mrs. Brown engaged her students by asking them to take out their calculators so
they could help her with the mathematical conversions and calculations. Mrs. Brown continued
to orient her students in the next class (Day 2). In the subsequent parts of the section, I examine
and analyze how Mrs. Brown engaged her students in the inquiry process using technology on
Day 2.
Inquiry Process Part I: Orientation (Day 1, 7:53-8:09 AM, 16 minutes)
7:53-7:56 AM (3 minutes)
Mrs. Brown started the class by providing the instructions for the first activity,
Mrs. B: You have to listen now. I will call your name, will give you a number.
Come up and get this. [referring to the Energy Use Monitor Belkin devices
placed individually in zip lock bags]
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

166

Mrs. Brown was seated, looked at her laptop, grabbed the zip lock bags out of the “Belkin”
labeled box to her left. Mrs. Brown reached for the bags with her left hand as she typed on her
laptop with her right hand. Students got up as their names were called, then walked backed to
their seats. One student, Trent, asked a question, “Do we take out our computers?” The students
responded all at the same time to Trent’s question, “No!!” Trent asked another question, “Then
why do you have your computers out?” Nobody responded to Trent’s second question.
7:56-8:06 AM (10 minutes)
After distributing the Belkin devices, Mrs. Brown showed the agenda on the white board:
Agenda 4/25
• Belkin device distribution
• Belkin Protocol (How to Guide Belkin Device)
• Belkin Energy Monitoring Sheet (Practice)
o Take home full worksheet
o Record 5 STANDBY POWER devices
o Have parents initial sheet!
Mrs. Brown got up and showed the students the two sheets that she had placed on the students’
desks before class. One sheet was labeled “How Much Is It Using: Belkin Energy Monitoring
Sheet” and the other sheet was labeled “Practice.” Mrs. Brown spoke to the class, “We have a
protocol on how you will do this.” Mrs. Brown stood in front of the classroom, leaned on her
table, and asked a student to read item #1 on the “How Much Is it Using: Belkin Energy
Monitoring Sheet.” Mrs. Brown held up the paper and commented, “I see some of you guys are
not even reading this. Go ahead Roxy, #2.” Roxy then read aloud #2. Mrs. Brown continued with
her instructions:
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

167

Mrs. B: So the first thing that you will do is [Mrs. Brown pointed at the different
electric outlets in the classroom that students could use for the
activity]…we got one of the chargers here…so the first thing that you
have to do is to plug the device in to the outlet…#3 Aiden [Aiden then
read aloud item #3]…now look at your Belkin devices [Mrs. Brown held
up a Belkin device and stood behind her desk, then talked about the
buttons on the Belkin device]…Mason, read the next. Are we on #4?
SS: Yes [then Mason read aloud item #4]
Mrs. B: Today you will fill out the one that says “Practice” sheet, and the other
one you will take home. Now, device on. Mine is already on.
Mrs. Brown grabbed a clamp light and asked the students if it used Standby Mode.
Diamond: What is that? [referring to the clamp lamp]
Mrs. B: Remember when we went over, when we did the carbon dioxide
experiment?
Diamond: How much does this cost? [referring to the Belkin device]
Mrs. B: About $30.
SS: Oh gosh
Diamond: [chuckled] Never mind
Mrs. B: So the devices around the classroom, you need to add the model and the
code, because if it’s just Kenmore [referring to the brand], then we don’t
know what it is. If you have any issues happening, then write them in the
notes section.
Gina: So if we charge our phone, will we read anything?
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

168

Mrs. B: Yeah! When you plug in your phone, you will be able to measure the
electricity running.
Mrs. Brown asked Daisy to read item #10. Daisy then read #10. At this time, no laptops were on.
Mrs. Brown talked to the class about the instructions in the handout.
8:06-8:09 AM (3 minutes)
Mrs. Brown walked to the back of the classroom and plugged in a microwave. Mrs.
Brown showed the class the microwave and told them that the microwave was on Standby Mode
when plugged in and not in use. Mrs. Brown then asked Trisen to read the next number. Trisen
read the next instruction. Mrs. Brown stated, “So the idea is to practice how to use the Belkin
device.” Mrs. Brown grabbed the Belkin device and told the class how to plug it in. The students
put away the “How Much Is It Using: Belkin Energy Monitoring Sheet” handout as Mrs. Brown
instructed them to use it for homework. Mrs. Brown walked to each group and assigned each
group a location where students could work. The students dispersed themselves to the assigned
locations.
In this class activity, Mrs. Brown spent 16 minutes from 7:53 to 8:09 AM orienting her
students with the class investigation on Standby Power mode of appliances found in the
classroom. Mrs. Brown performed three tasks in sequential order during the orientation stage.
First, Mrs. Brown distributed the Energy Use Monitor Belkin devices to the students one at a
time. Second, Mrs. Brown showed the agenda on the white board and provided clarification
instructions on the handouts that were provided to the students. Third, Mrs. Brown chose one
electrical appliance in the classroom and demonstrated to the students how she wanted them to
collect data in the investigation on Standby Power. In the subsequent sections, I analyze the way
Mrs. Brown oriented her students in each of the three tasks.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

169

From 7:53 to 7:56 AM (3 minutes), Mrs. Brown distributed the Belkin devices, but did
not engage her students in any type of learning task. During this time, Mrs. Brown focused her
attention in distributing the Belkin devices to the students individually. While Mrs. Brown
focused her attention on distributing the devices, she did not assign her students a learning task
related to the lesson, or provide her students any prompt. Consequently, the lack of Mrs.
Brown’s direct instructions during this part of the orientation caused confusion among the
students. For example, one of the students, Trent, was unsure what to do. Trent asked the
questions, “Do we take out our computers?...Then why do you have your computers out?” Mrs.
Brown did not address Trent’s inquiry. Trent’s classmates, however, responded to him, “No!” It
was evident in this part of the orientation that Mrs. Brown focused her attention on the device
distribution. Mrs. Brown did not provide her students direct instructions while they waited for
her to finish distributing the devices.
From 7:56 to 8:06 AM (10 minutes), Mrs. Brown projected the agenda on the white
board, but did not clarify all the contents of the agenda. Although the students could read the
projected agenda on the white board, Mrs. Brown did not explicitly describe, explain, or clarify
the type of data to be recorded (e.g., Watts, etc.) or the type of device to include or exclude
during data collection. It appeared that Mrs. Brown had assumed that her students would
interpret the information the way she wrote the agenda on the white board. While the agenda was
projected on the white board, Mrs. Brown focused only on one of the bulleted information, the
“Belkin Energy Monitoring Sheet (Practice).” Mrs. Brown gave clarification instructions on the
handouts that were provided to the students before class. Although the students performed the
tasks that Mrs. Brown asked them to do, their passive participation in this part of the orientation
stage did not involve cognitive demand. Mrs. Brown asked her students to read aloud the steps in
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

170

the protocol, but she did not ask them to interpret the steps in the protocol based on their
understanding of the information. As expected during the orientation stage, it was evident that
there was little cognitive demand involved when Mrs. Brown asked the students to read the steps
in the protocol.
During this block of time, Mrs. Brown oriented the students on how to plug in and turn
on the device, and the buttons on the device. During this part of the orientation stage, although
Mrs. Brown guided her students how to use the Belkin device by showing them how the device
worked, Mrs. Brown did not provide her students the opportunity to ask a question for them to
investigate. Mrs. Brown instructed the students which handout to fill out during class
investigation and which handout to complete as homework assignment. This part of the
orientation stage demonstrated Mrs. Brown’s teacher-centered approach to guiding her students
as they engaged in the lesson.
In the same block of time, Diamond demonstrated her curiosity of the objects that Mrs.
Brown was showing to the class. Diamond asked questions about the clamp lamp and cost of the
Belkin device. Mrs. Brown did not answer Diamond’s former question. Instead, Mrs. Brown
asked the students to recall their experiment on carbon dioxide. Neither Mrs. Brown nor her
students expanded on Mrs. Brown’s comment about the carbon dioxide experiment. It was
unclear whether Mrs. Brown’s intention was to provide clarification on the use of the clamp
lamp, or to make the connection between the carbon dioxide experiment and the Standby Power
mode investigation, when Mrs. Brown mentioned about the carbon dioxide experiment.
From 8:06 to 8:09 AM (3 minutes), Mrs. Brown used the microwave as an example to
demonstrate an appliance that was on Standby Power mode when plugged in but not in use. Mrs.
Brown used this opportunity to model the way she wanted her students to collect their data.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

171

However, Mrs. Brown assumed that her students would be able to do the same when collecting
data using various appliances. Mrs. Brown ended her demonstration of how she wanted her
students to collect data by stating, “So the idea is to practice how to use the Belkin device.”
Although Mrs. Brown mentioned the purpose of the activity, she explicitly introduced the
purpose of the activity toward the end of the orientation stage. By introducing the purpose at the
end of the orientation stage, Mrs. Brown did not provide her students sufficient time to make the
connection between the intended purpose and the actual activity.
In summary, Mrs. Brown performed three tasks in a sequential manner during the
orientation stage of the learning cycle. These tasks provided Mrs. Brown the opportunities to
distribute the Belkin devices, show the class agenda and describe the student tasks involving the
handouts, and demonstrate the way she wanted her students to collect data as they investigated
the Standby Power mode of various appliances.
Although Mrs. Brown gave her students the opportunity to start with a new topic for
investigation, the data showed that Mrs. Brown focused on the procedural aspect of how the
Belkin device worked, rather than creating student interest or stimulating curiosity, during the
orientation stage. Mrs. Brown guided her students how to use the Belkin device, preparing them
for the exploration stage of the Standby Power mode investigation. However, it was not evident
that Mrs. Brown created student interest or provided the opportunity to read relevant scientific
theories relating Standby Power. Pedaste et al. (2015) describe that during orientation,
One has to explore or observe a phenomenon in order to get interested in it, to read some
theory in order to know the scientifically oriented questions related to this particular
phenomenon, and to engage him or herself with the issue through a challenging anchor
point. (p. 52)
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

172

They (2015) define orientation as “the process of stimulating curiosity about a topic and
addressing a learning challenge through a problem statement” (p. 54). It was not evident that
Mrs. Brown’s students generated a problem statement during the Standby Power investigation.
During the orientation stage, although Mrs. Brown showed the agenda on the white board
and focused on one of the bulleted information, she did not clearly specify the learning
objectives of the lesson, scientific concepts, or the science practices that she intended to teach.
Mrs. Brown mentioned the purpose of the class activity after she had performed the three tasks
during the orientation stage.
In the next section, I examine and analyze the evidence demonstrating the way Mrs.
Brown engaged her students in the exploration stage of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). The
evidence involves the class activities that took place on Day 2 following the orientation stage on
Day 1.
Inquiry Process Part II: Exploration (Day 2, 8:10-8:30 AM, 20 minutes)
Marco’s group conducted their Standby Power investigation on Mrs. Brown’s desk.
Cathy held the Belkin device while Marco plugged in the other end. Daisy and Trisen’s group
worked in the back area by the microwave. Aiden and Mason’s group worked in the station next
to the glass windows. Agnes and William’s group worked on their desk, with the clamp lamp
plugged in and turned on. Mrs. Brown instructed the students, “Please don’t hold the buttons
down more than a minute.” The students wrote down on their practice paper the numbers shown
on the Belkin device. Mrs. Brown visited each group and talked to them about how to turn on the
Belkin device. Mrs. Brown commented, “All you have to worry about is the Watts.” [Mrs.
Brown talked to the students and prompted them to record only the Watts information] The
students moved around from one group to the next, measuring the Watts produced by each of the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

173

appliances. Mrs. Brown talked to each group and showed them how to plug in or read the Belkin
device. Mrs. Brown spoke, “Okay, class, class, if you need to use the strip…” [the students could
not hear Mrs. Brown] The students talked to the other group members while Mrs. Brown spoke
to them.
The students turned on the appliances in each group, plugged in the Belkin device,
pressed the buttons and the numbers showed up. The students recorded the data shown on the
Belkin device in their “Practice” handouts. The students talked to each other while measuring the
Watts for each appliance. Mrs. Brown spoke to the class, “Okay class, when you have four
devices, please sit down. Although Mrs. Brown spoke to the class, it was difficult to hear the
conversations because the class got louder and louder. The students were standing, plugging in
the appliances, and recording the numbers shown on the Belkin devices.
I took a closer look at the interactions for one of the groups. Mrs. Brown was seated in
the back, talked to Agnes about the numbers shown on the Belkin device. Mrs. Brown told
Agnes the model number of the microwave while the microwave door was open. The Belkin
device read “20.4 Watts.” When Mrs. Brown closed the microwave door, the Belkin device
showed “1.8 Watts.” Mrs. Brown told Agnes to write a note that when the microwave door was
open, the Watts value was higher. Agnes recorded the information.
Mrs. Brown told the class and gave them instructions on what to do for their homework.
Mrs. Brown stated, “Don’t lose the baggy…class, wait…sit down, sit down.” At this time the
class was getting rowdy, the students were talking, Mrs. Brown’s voice got louder, and Mrs.
Brown seemed to have a difficult time getting the students’ attention. Mrs. Brown informed the
class, “Your cable box, see how much of that it is using…listen…see how much the rice cooker
is using…” The students got up and carried with them their Belkin devices placed in the Ziploc
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

174

bag. Mrs. Brown went back to her desk and changed the slide on the white board. Mrs. Brown
dismissed her students.
Mrs. Brown spent 20 minutes of class time on Day 2 engaging her students in the
exploration stage of the learning cycle. During the exploration stage, Mrs. Brown provided her
students the opportunity to independently collect data in groups on Standby Power mode of
appliances found in the classroom using the Belkin devices. However, Mrs. Brown continued to
guide the students by providing additional instructions verbally, ensuring that students recorded
the correct data in their practice sheets. For example, Mrs. Brown instructed her students, “Please
don’t hold the buttons down more than a minute…All you have to worry about is the
Watts…Okay, class, class, if you need to use the strip… Okay class, when you have four
devices, please sit down…” Although Mrs. Brown provided additional instructions while
students collected data, her verbal instructions were inaudible because of the high noise level
produced by the students as they investigated the electrical output of the different appliances.
During the exploration stage, Mrs. Brown engaged her students in simple observation
(Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) type of inquiry. The students turned on the appliances found in each
station, plugged in the Belkin device, pressed the buttons and recorded the data provided by the
Belkin device. The students recorded the data in their practice sheets and performed the tasks
that Mrs. Brown had asked them to do. The students conversed with each other as they engaged
in the data collection. During the 20 minutes of exploration, it was evident that the students
performed the tasks that Mrs. Brown wanted them to do, indicating Mrs. Brown’s teacher-
centered approach to engaging students in inquiry.
Although Mrs. Brown’s students were engaged with evidence during data collection, they
were not engaged in conceptualization, the process of stating theory-based questions and/or
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

175

hypotheses (Pedaste et al., 2015) prior to exploration. Mrs. Brown did not provide the students
the opportunity to state the problem or ask a research question for them to answer as part of the
investigation. Student questioning, or the process of generating research questions based on a
stated problem (Pedaste et al., 2015) was not evident during exploration. Mrs. Brown did not ask
her students to engage in hypothesis generation, the process of generating hypotheses regarding a
stated problem (Pedaste et al., 2015) either. The absence of student questioning or hypothesis
generation suggested that the class investigation on Standby Power mode was a teacher-guided
simple observation type of inquiry, where the students observed and described objects (Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002). Furthermore, Mrs. Brown provided her students simple directions during data
collection (e.g., “All you have to worry about is the Watts…Okay class, when you have four
devices, please sit down…”). Mrs. Brown’s simple directions did not involve cognitively
demanding tasks.
It was evident during the exploration stage that Mrs. Brown asked her students to record
their data. However, Mrs. Brown did not assign cognitively demanding tasks when she engaged
her students with evidence during data collection. The NRC (2012) suggests,
As they [investigations] become more sophisticated, students also should have
opportunities not only to identify questions to be researched but also decide what data are
to be gathered, what variables should be controlled, what tools or instruments are needed
to gather and record data in an appropriate format, and eventually to consider how to
incorporate measurement error in analyzing data. Older students should be asked to
develop a hypothesis that predicts a particular and stable outcome and to explain their
reasoning and justify their choice. (p. 61)
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

176

The tasks that Mrs. Brown asked her students to perform were simple and unsophisticated.
Although the students conversed with each other while measuring the electrical output for the
appliances, their level of inquiry was limited to the structure set by Mrs. Brown. It was not
evident that Mrs. Brown or her students asked higher-level critical thinking questions during the
exploration stage. What was evident was passive engagement of students using a teacher-
centered guided inquiry approach. For example, Mrs. Brown told Agnes to write a note that the
electrical output was higher when the microwave door was opened compared to the electrical
output when the microwave door was closed. Mrs. Brown did not ask Agnes why there was a
difference, or to share her reasoning or thought process behind the electrical output difference.
In summary, Mrs. Brown supported teacher-guided simple observation (Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002) inquiry during the exploration stage of the Standby Power mode investigation.
Although the students worked in groups and used technological tools during data collection of
the investigation, Mrs. Brown did not give them an opportunity to ask a question to investigate or
formulate their hypothesis prior to the investigation. Mrs. Brown engaged her students in the
Standby Power mode investigation to collect evidence, but she did not ask her students higher-
level critical thinking questions or to perform cognitively demanding tasks as they explored. In
this class investigation, Mrs. Brown’s class demonstrated the features of the orientation and
exploration stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). The concept formation, application, or
closure stage of the learning cycle was not evident in this particular lesson.
Contextualized Learning
In this study, I conceptualized contextualized learning that supports inquiry as classroom
science is linked with the broader community to make meaning of and experience a curriculum
that is relevant to students’ lives and interests using technology that helps students experience
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

177

the world beyond their own context. It was evident that Mrs. Brown provided an opportunity for
her students to make meaning of and experience a curriculum that was relevant to their lives and
interests using technology. In this particular lesson, Mrs. Brown focused on electrical safety and
Standby Power of electrical devices commonly found and used at home. In this lesson, Mrs.
Brown engaged her students in simple inquiry, not authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002). Mrs. Brown engaged her students during scaffolding by asking them to share
examples of devices they thought would use Standby Power. Mrs. Brown and her students
utilized Google Docs as she guided them during scaffolding. During scaffolding, Mrs. Brown
expanded on student responses by contextualizing how the student-generated examples of
devices demonstrated the features of Standby Power. It was evident that when contextualizing
the lesson, Mrs. Brown paid attention to her students’ responses during discourse, and used them
as a new context for learning. The data showed that Mrs. Brown made curriculum-to-curriculum
and curriculum-to-self connections (Wyatt, 2016) when teaching Standby Power. To
contextualize the lesson on Standby Power, Mrs. Brown utilized teaching-based technological
tools. Mrs. Brown utilized Vampire Manor, an interactive website, to engage students as they
independently explored at home the topic relating Standby Power. Mrs. Brown and her students
utilized the Energy Use Monitor Belkin device during class to demonstrate how electrical power
was determined and calculated. Mrs. Brown ended the class activity by making the connection
between the cost of electrical power and living in Hawaii.
After Mrs. Brown’s students had completed the “Electrical Safety Quiz” online
assessment on their laptops, Mrs. Brown and her students engaged in a discourse on electricity:
S: Can I take it again?
S: Yay, I got a perfect score.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

178

S: Yay, I got a 10.
Mrs. B: Kalani, maybe you can come and see me during lunch. Let me check.
[Mrs. Brown checked the results of the “Electrical Safety Quiz” on her
laptop] Everyone got a 100%.
Trisen: Yay, that means everyone has got a common sense.
Mrs. B: Okay, close your computers for a second. Does anyone know how to
measure electricity?
S: Volts
Diamond: Watts
S: Amps
Mrs. B: So there are different ways to measure electricity, volts, watts, amps. What
causes electricity?
Mrs. Brown sat on her desk and asked the students. She used her hands as she spoke. Marco said
something and Mrs. Brown gave Marco a high five. Mrs. Brown talked about amps and voltage:
Mrs. B: Okay, voltage.
Trisen: High electricity. When you see high voltage, don’t touch or you will die.
Mrs. B: Somebody needs to make a kids video on amps.
Trisen: What’s a gigabyte?
Mason: It’s for your phone. [Giggled]
Mrs. Brown walked over to her laptop and showed a video. The video talked about watts and
joules. Mrs. Brown crossed her arms as she watched the video. The students watched and giggled
on the jokes mentioned in the video. When the video ended, Mrs. Brown spoke:
Mrs. B: So we talked about joules before. [Mrs. Brown stood in front of the class]
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

179

Trisen: I forgot, is that the one with the white paper?
Mrs. B: Open your “Standby Power Notes.” [Mrs. Brown projected the worksheet
on the white board and the students opened the “Standby Power Notes”
file on their Google Drive] What I want you to do, without saying
anything, is put what you think about the “Standby Power” definition.
[Mrs. Brown asked the students to type their idea of the Standby Power
definition using their laptops] So you got what you believe what “Standby
Power” means and in #2, you are going to type what you have in your
house that might use Standby Power.
The students typed their definitions of “Standby Power” in the first row. They then talked to their
partners the answers to the second question relating “Devices I think might use Standby Power.”
Mrs. Brown walked around and asked the students to include as many devices they could think
of. Diamond typed “DVD player, blender, and phone charger.” Mason typed “microwave.” Mrs.
Brown asked her students if they had worked on their homework from the night prior, “How
many of you played the Vampire Manor game?” The students raised their hands. Mrs. Brown
surveyed her students, “Okay, we need to move on. You have 9? 13? 30? 8?” Students raised
their hands depending on the number of devices on their list. Mason responded, “We have 4.”
Mrs. Brown asked, “4? We have a problem here.” [chuckled] Diamond and Gina stated, “We
have a different definition.” Mrs. Brown typed her answer for the third question, “Ways to tell if
a device uses a Standby Power…clock display, light that stays on even when it is off.” The
students typed and shared with each other their answers to question #3. The class engaged in
another discussion:

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

180

S: Air conditioner
Mrs. B: Really? Coffee maker, because it has a clock in it.
Trisen: Our computers, when it is shut down, it turns off automatically. Does that
count?
Mrs. B: Okay, what I want you to do now, don’t delete them, use the
strikethrough. If we let this fan on, it…[before completing her sentence,
Mrs. Brown was interrupted by Marco]
Marco: It’s just a waste.
Mrs. B: So if it’s on Standby mode, so revisit your devices and use the
strikethrough.
Trisen: Would a blow dryer work?
Mrs. B: Yes. Most girls would leave their curling iron on. So here’s the thing, if
there’s a little light on it, then it’s using the Standby mode.
Agnes: What about a lamp?
Mrs. B: So if you leave and it’s [lamp] on, then it’s wasting and not on Standby
mode.
Trisen: Would a remote control count?
Mrs. B: If you have a remote control, then it might be on a Standby mode. [the
students checked their list and talked to their partners which item to put a
strikethrough] So have you, are you done editing your list?
Ss: Yes
Mrs. B: So here’s a Ziploc bag. [Mrs. Brown grabbed a Ziploc bag with electronic
devices in it] I’m going to show you, let me show you what I learned the
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

181

first time I used this project. I learned that my computer, I like to carry it
around, I found that when it’s 100% charged, I should probably unplug it
because I’m actually wasting it.
Mrs. Brown talked to the class about the Energy Use Monitor Belkin device, plugged it in, and
described to the class the information and numbers shown on the device, “13.9, is that the
highest? Now it’s 12.4. I’m going to put 11. I’m going to share more details about that. 11 Watts,
type that in your sheet [Mrs. Brown referred to question #4 and wrote “11 W” on the white
board] But you need to convert it.” Mrs. Brown wrote on the white board the conversion “11 W
x 1 kW / 1000 W =” and wrote “.011 W” for question #4. Mrs. Brown asked the students to take
out their calculators so they could help her with the conversions and calculations. In response,
the students took out their calculators. Mrs. Brown wrote on the white board:
.011 kW x 24 = .264 kW/day
.264 kW/day x 30 = 7.92 kW/month
7.92 kW/month x 12 = 95.04 kW/year
The students typed on their laptops what Mrs. Brown had written on the white board. Mrs.
Brown further engaged the class in the discussion:
Mrs. B: So it’s approximately 33 cents per kilowatts. [Mrs. Brown wrote .33 kWh
on the white board for question #5] Why do we pay so much more in
Hawaii?
S: Because we’re not connected.
Mrs. B: We pay our oil to be shipped here.
Trisen: Why does everybody think Hawaii is paradise? [students mumbled and
Mrs. Brown asked for their attention]
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

182

Mrs. B: Guys, so .33, let’s multiply that by 95.04. [Mrs. Brown wrote .33 x 95.04
= $31.36 for question #6] So this is how much each device costs per year.
What time is it? Ooops, okay guys, we’ll talk more about this tomorrow.
Students got up and put their laptops in their bags. Mrs. Brown dismissed the class.
In this section of my study, I examine and analyze the evidence how Mrs. Brown
demonstrated contextualized learning to support scientific inquiry. Wyatt (2016) argues the
importance of contextualization, “More than any other strategy, contextualization has the
potential to connect students to content learning in ways that are meaningful and relevant to
students because it is transferable to any curriculum and classroom” (p. 128). My examination
and analysis of the evidence is divided into two parts. First I examine and analyze Mrs. Brown’s
responses to my interview questions to have an understanding of her intentions for implementing
the lesson. I wanted to know how her intentions shaped the implementation of the lesson on
Standby Power. In the second part of this section, I examine and analyze Mrs. Brown’s teaching
practices and interactions with the students when she implemented the lesson.
Mrs. Brown focused her lesson on electrical safety and Standby Power of electrical
devices commonly found and used at home. The activity described here provided an opportunity
for Mrs. Brown to link science with the broader community and introduce how energy
consumption of electrical devices could be measured before students conducted independent
investigations at their homes. To understand the purpose for implementing this lesson, I asked
Mrs. Brown to provide an overview of the lesson. Mrs. Brown described:
The electrical safety was from a project that I'm doing, “Middle Schoolers Out to Save
the World”…this “Middle Schoolers Out to Save the World” project is from the
University of North Texas…So they actually provide a lot of that information for me, and
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

183

the [Energy Use Monitor] Belkin devices they had provided for us as well…They
[students] had to get some understanding of electrical safety, Standby Power. And then I
ended up assigning them those devices [Energy Use Monitor Belkin devices]...first they
had to be able to practice using them around the room [classroom], and then take them
home and use them at home.
Here, Mrs. Brown described how she got the idea for the lesson. Mrs. Brown’s participation in
the “Middle Schoolers Out to Save the World” project provided her the opportunity to engage
her students in hands-on activities relating electrical safety and Standby Power. Mrs. Brown
described that student use of the Energy Use Monitor Belkin devices involved teacher-guided
practice in the classroom and independent investigations at the students’ homes. Mrs. Brown
explained further how this particular lesson provided opportunities to link classroom science
with the broader community:
Well, we haven’t finished compiling the data for this year, but I can tell you in the past
that we’ve learned about devices that used to be Standby Power, that are no longer
Standby Power—like cellphone chargers, for example, used to be; they’re not anymore.
And then things that are, like rice cookers that stay on for 24 hours. That was a huge item
last year that people were surprised how much. It uses quite a bit of energy…We’re
actually going to go from the electricity use to we will calculate their CO
2
. And then
we’ll see how much in the state of Hawaii is that [sic]. And if there’s this [sic] many
things in home, how much is it for the United States? So they’re [students] going to get a
big picture of how much CO
2
we’re producing... just on Standby Power things,
devices…figure out how much CO
2
they’re [students] using and how much Hawaii is
using, and then how much the United States is using, which is usually pretty impactful. I
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

184

want them to come up with solutions, and probably going to present solutions to the
class, or make posters if I don’t have time for presentations. Or at least make posters...
Here, Mrs. Brown explained further the intended progression of the lesson. First, Mrs. Brown
mentioned that the lesson involved students collecting data. Mrs. Brown’s students had been
collecting data on Standby Power in the past. Mrs. Brown explained that the student
investigations on Standby Power involved electricity use, student calculations of their carbon
dioxide emission, determining the carbon dioxide emission in Hawaii as well as the U.S. as a
whole. Mrs. Brown explained that through the chosen lesson, the students would have an
understanding of the “big picture of how much carbon dioxide they are producing.” Once the
students learned the amount of carbon dioxide emission in Hawaii and the rest of country, Mrs.
Brown explained that she wanted her students to be able to generate solutions and share these
solutions to the class. Mrs. Brown’s explanation of the intended progression of the lesson
indicated that she wanted to engage her students in the lesson to provide opportunities for the
students to make the connection between the scientific concepts (e.g., electricity use, Standby
Power, carbon dioxide emission, etc.) and their impact on the society. Although Mrs. Brown
intended to make the connections between Standby Power and carbon dioxide emission, she did
not clearly specify the scientific concepts or instructional objectives for this particular lesson.
Mrs. Brown explained, “We're actually going to go from the electricity use to we will calculate
their CO
2
…So they're [students] going to get a big picture of how much CO
2
we're producing...
just on Standby Power things, devices…” Mrs. Brown’s explanation suggested that she had
intended to make the connections between Standby Power and carbon dioxide emission, but she
was not clear how the connections represented a particular scientific knowledge. The way Mrs.
Brown expressed her intention to make the connections suggests that she wanted her students to
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

185

know the connections among the overarching concepts related to the lesson. However, such
connections were ambiguously stated.
Mrs. Brown further described that she had chosen this type of activity to purposefully
make the connections between prior curriculum relating climate and the carbon cycle, and the
consumption of electricity. Mrs. Brown’s intention for doing so was to make curriculum-to-
curriculum connections (Wyatt, 2016). Mrs. Brown described:
..it [class activity] fits in perfectly with building their information of the climate, the
carbon cycle. How are we impacting the carbon cycle? We’re impacting it because we’re
burning fossil fuels. Why are we burning fossil fuels? We're burning fossil fuels to make
electricity. And then, now they’re seeing, you know, well, how are we wasting
electricity? Is [sic] there ways that we can improve it? So they’re [students] coming up
with solutions through using their Belkin device. And the interest that I get is great!
“[Mrs. Brown], my TV didn't use any Standby Power!” That’s what I’m hearing today.
Or, “This used so much Standby Power, and it didn’t even have a light on it. I was
surprised!” You know, that kind of information. So they’re excited about learning about
how they’re using electricity in their home.
Here, Mrs. Brown described how the lesson was connected with the scientific concepts (e.g.,
climate, carbon cycle, burning of fossil fuels, electricity waste, etc.) taught prior. Mrs. Brown
was aware that the lesson on Standby Power related with the prior curriculum. Mrs. Brown
stated, “it fits in perfectly with building their information of the climate, the carbon cycle.”
Although Mrs. Brown intended to make the curriculum-to-curriculum connections (Wyatt,
2016), she made the assumption that her students would consequently be able to make such
connections without making the connections by her explicit. Mrs. Brown made the assumption
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

186

that her students would be able to perceive the connections that way she perceived them.
Furthermore, the way Mrs. Brown expressed the cause-and-effect of the science concepts was
generalized and unidirectional. Mrs. Brown’s expression of her intention to teach the science
concepts represented an oversimplification of the complex nature of the phenomena, a teaching
practice that may not support students in their development of sophisticated conceptions of the
scientific processes in nature. The NRC (2012) describes:
The ability to examine, characterize, and model the transfers and cycles of matter and
energy is a tool that students can use across virtually all areas of science and engineering.
And studying the interactions between matter and energy supports students in developing
increasingly sophisticated conceptions of their role in any system. (p. 95)
Mrs. Brown’s expression of her intention to teach the science concepts in the lesson lacked the
features described by the NRC (2012). It was not evident in Mrs. Brown’s responses that she had
intended her students to examine, characterize, or model the transfers and cycles of matter and
energy.
Further analysis of Mrs. Brown’s responses revealed her intention to make the lesson
relevant and exciting. Mrs. Brown described that her intention for implementing the lesson was
to make it relevant to her students’ lives. Mrs. Brown stated:
How are we impacting the carbon cycle? We’re impacting it because we’re burning fossil
fuels. Why are we burning fossil fuels? We’re burning fossil fuels to make electricity.
And then, now they’re seeing, you know, well, how are we wasting electricity?
Through engagement in the lesson, Mrs. Brown wanted her students to be interested and excited
about the concepts taught (curriculum-to-self connections). Mrs. Brown described, “So they’re
[students] coming up with solutions through using their Belkin device. And the interest that I get
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

187

is great!... So they’re excited about learning about how they’re using electricity in their home.”
Mrs. Brown also thought that it was a great idea if students were exposed to careers related to the
lesson on Standby Power. Mrs. Brown expressed:
I would add that the career...You know, it’s so great whenever we can throw in little
careers for them [students] to be exposed to. And so I like that [sic] the fact that this is an
actual career, that people actually do this for residence and businesses.
Mrs. Brown’s thoughts suggested that her teaching of the lesson involved making relevance to
the topic that may be of interest to her students.
In summary of the analysis of Mrs. Brown’s responses to my interview questions, it was
evident that Mrs. Brown had intentionally implemented the lesson with a contextualized teaching
approach in mind, creating relevance and meaning when linking her students’ everyday
experiences with academic knowledge (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Mrs. Brown’s comments
revealed that she was aware that the lesson on Standby Power was connected to the prior lessons
(curriculum-to-curriculum connections). Wyatt (2016) posits that curriculum-to-curriculum
connections are important in teaching, are a form of contextualization, and support the
development of academic knowledge. Mrs. Brown’s comments also indicated that when she
implemented the lesson on Standby Power, Mrs. Brown wanted to connect the scientific
concepts to her students’ personal experiences (curriculum-to-self connections). Wyatt (2016)
states that curriculum-to-self connections are useful in drawing out students’ personal knowledge
and experience. In the subsequent sections, I analyze Mrs. Brown’s teaching practices and the
way she interacted with her students to support inquiry when she implemented the lesson on
Standby Power.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

188

It was evident in this activity that Mrs. Brown’s eighth grade science class was linked
with the broader community. Mrs. Brown provided an opportunity for her students to make
meaning of and experience a curriculum that was relevant to their lives and interests using
technology. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) posit that contextualizing instruction by situating new
information in meaningful contexts activates students’ prior knowledge, making it more
accessible for linking with new information. When Mrs. Brown introduced the lesson in the
beginning of the class, she utilized scaffolding by asking students questions related to electricity
and activating prior knowledge. Mrs. Brown asked, “Does anyone know how to measure
electricity?” The students responded, “Volts…Watts…Amps.” Mrs. Brown acknowledged the
student responses and prompted the class, “So there are different ways to measure electricity,
volts, watts, amps. What causes electricity?” Trisen responded to Mrs. Brown’s question, “High
electricity. When you see high voltage, don’t touch or you will die.” After this brief introduction
of the topic, Mrs. Brown showed the class a video on watts and joules. The students responded to
the video by giggling on the jokes mentioned in the video. After showing the video, Mrs. Brown
reminded and prompted the students,
So we talked about joule before...Open your “Standby Power Notes. What I want you to
do, without saying anything, is put what you think about the “Standby Power” definition.
So you got what you believe what “Standby Power” means and in #2, you are going to
type what you have in your house that might use Standby Power.
Here, Mrs. Brown provided an opportunity for her students to recall and record what they knew
or thought about the term “Standby Power” by guiding her students on the tasks which involved
answering questions on Google Docs. Mrs. Brown asked the students to enumerate the devices
found in their homes that used Standby Power. By doing so, Mrs. Brown provided her students
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

189

the means to make the connections between the lesson and the electrical devices they used at
their homes. The students typed their definition of Standby Power in the first row and then talked
to their partners the answers to the second question relating “Devices I think might use Standby
Power.” Mrs. Brown walked around and asked the students to include as many devices they
could think of.
While the students interacted with each other as they answered questions #1 and #2 in
their Standby Power Notes, Mrs. Brown asked her students if they had worked on their
homework online from the night prior, “How many of you played the Vampire Manor game?”
Students raised their hands. I asked Mrs. Brown on a separate occasion to provide more details
about this particular homework. She described:
It’s [Vampire Manor] animated, and it’s kind of like a game. They [students] earn...they
don’t earn money, they earn clams in the city...So, we use it. The Middle Schoolers Out
to Save the World people use it because they go to Vampire Manor. Vampire Power --
the other word for Standby Power. And there’s all these little devices inside the house.
And then they learn how to [the] difference. And they know. They learn that if you’re
using it, that’s not Standby Power; that’s using electricity; that’s, it’s [sic] in use…That’s
one of the things they learn after going through and clicking on those things…So through
the students having played the game, and some of them learn the hard way, ‘cause if you
do...if you unplug too many things or whatever, you get stopped, you can’t play it
anymore…It’s interactive.
Mrs. Brown provided an opportunity for her students to learn about Standby Power by assigning
the Vampire Manor homework online, with the intent to make it interesting for her students to
learn the topic through an interactive way. By assigning the homework online, Mrs. Brown
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

190

provided an opportunity for her students to practice and explore the electrical devices that used
Standby Power. Mrs. Brown explained:
I tell them to go there [Vampire Manor]. I tell them to take the safety quiz. And that’s a
good practice, because the quiz that I have is the exact same one…And it’s the one set up
by the Middle Schoolers Out to Save the World people. So they...it’s [Vampire Manor]
already established. And then, I tell them to go inside and play around and see all the
devices that use Standby Power, and all the differences and things like that. So they did
that the night before...I give them some of the tips after they’ve come up with their
devices, still not really being 100% sure. The different tips of what indicates a device
would be Standby Power: if it has a clock, if it has a light on, if it’s warm to the touch
after it’s been off for a minute -- that sort of thing. And so after I tell them to go edit their
list and they were supposed to put a strikethrough -- not delete it, but just strike through
the items that don’t belong.
It was evident that Mrs. Brown augmented her lesson with an interactive homework assignment
online, with the intent to promote a better understanding of the devices that used Standby Power
through the use of technology.
After asking her students if they did their homework the night prior, Mrs. Brown engaged
her students further in contextualized learning through discourse. When the students asked
questions, Mrs. Brown used the student inquiries to contextualize the learning of Standby Power
mode concept. The students thought about and listed various devices that were commonly found
and used at home such as an air conditioner, student computers, a blow dryer, a lamp, and a
remote control. The student inquiries in this class activity (e.g., “Our computers, when it is shut
down, it turns off automatically. Does that count?...Would a blow dryer work?...What about a
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

191

lamp?...Would a remote control count?”) demonstrated student engagement in an active process
of questioning and analyzing new information in the context of common household electronic
devices. Beals (1998) states that when students develop new schema, they engage in an active
process of sorting, analyzing, and interpreting new information in the context of familiar
material. By having the students generate examples of electrical devices that may or may not use
Standby Power, Mrs. Brown utilized prior knowledge in the form of student responses to learn
the concept that she wanted her students to know. When the students shared their examples of
devices, Mrs. Brown provided the context whether the devices used Standby Power or not. Mrs.
Brown explained:
Coffee maker, because it has a clock in it…If we let this fan to enjoy, it…Most girls
would leave their curling iron on. So here’s the thing, if there’s a little light on it, then it’s
using the Standby mode…So if you leave and it’s [lamp] on, then it’s wasting and not on
Standby mode…If you have a remote control, then it might be on a Standby mode…
When Mrs. Brown explained whether the electrical devices used Standby Power or not, she
provided an opportunity to increase the associations between what her students knew and what
she wanted them to learn. Baddeley (1990) and Lockhart and Craik (1990) assert that one
approach to contextualization is for the teacher to maximize the amount of processing and
associations that are made between what students know and the desired learning outcome. In this
student-teacher discourse, it was evident that when contextualizing the lesson, Mrs. Brown did
not simply make any association to the new content being introduced or frontload the students to
build background knowledge. Instead, Mrs. Brown paid attention to her students’ responses and
used them as a new context for learning.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

192

After providing the students the opportunity to share examples and contextualizing the
relevance of their listed devices, Mrs. Brown introduced the Energy Use Monitor Belkin device
(Appendix I) by physically demonstrating its features to the class. The Energy Use Monitor
Belkin device was a tool used to determine how much energy various devices consumed,
including the cost of operation, the amount of carbon dioxide produced in generating the
electricity consumed, and watts (Belkin International, Inc., 2012). Mrs. Brown engaged her
students in simple observation, a simple inquiry task, where her students observed and described
objects (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Mrs. Brown explained the function of the Energy Use
Monitor Belkin device, plugged it in, and described to the class the information shown on the
device, “13.9, is that the highest? Now it’s 12.4. I’m going to put 11. I’m going to share more
details about that. 11 Watts, type that in your sheet” [Mrs. Brown referred to question #4 and
wrote “11 W” on the white board]. Here, Mrs. Brown used a tangible physical model to
contextualize how to determine power in an electric circuit of a certain device.
After Mrs. Brown determined the cost per kilowatts, she asked the class, “Why do we pay
so much more in Hawaii?” A student responded, “Because we’re not connected.” Mrs. Brown
added, “We pay our oil to be shipped here.” This conversation provided an opportunity for Mrs.
Brown to contextualize why electrical power costs more in Hawaii. Mrs. Brown ended the
demonstration of the calculations with relating the electrical power cost to living in Hawaii,
engaging students’ personal experience. Although the discourse toward the end of the class was
not in-depth, Mrs. Brown connected the lesson to students’ perspectives of living in Hawaii (e.g.,
“Because we’re not connected…Why does everybody think Hawaii is paradise?”). By doing so,
Mrs. Brown provided a familiar reference point for her students, leading them to the curriculum-
personal experience connections that needed to be made.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

193

In summary, it was evident in this class activity that Mrs. Brown provided an opportunity
for her students to make meaning of and experience a curriculum that was relevant to their lives
and interests using technology. Mrs. Brown focused her lesson on electrical safety and Standby
Power of electrical devices commonly found and used at home. Mrs. Brown engaged her
students in scaffolding, where she expanded on student responses by contextualizing the features
of Standby Power of the student-generated examples. Mrs. Brown and her students utilized
Google Docs as she guided them during scaffolding. Mrs. Brown used educational technological
tools such as the Vampire Manor interactive website to engage her students as they
independently explored the topic relating Standby Power. It was evident that when
contextualizing the lesson, Mrs. Brown paid attention to her students’ responses during discourse
and used them as a new context for learning. The data showed that Mrs. Brown made
curriculum-to-curriculum and curriculum-to-self connections (Wyatt, 2016) when teaching
Standby Power. Mrs. Brown utilized the Energy Use Monitor Belkin device to show how
electrical power was determined and calculated. Mrs. Brown ended the class activity by making
the connection between the cost of electrical power and living in Hawaii. Although Mrs. Brown
supported learning through contextualization of the lesson, it was evident that she supported
simple inquiry, not authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
Collaboration
In this section, I examine and analyze the ways Mrs. Brown supported collaboration in
her science class. In my conceptual framework, I defined collaboration as teachers and students
cooperating and producing together in the development of scientific knowledge using technology
to facilitate interaction and exchange of ideas in a classroom. The data showed that Mrs. Brown
and her students cooperated as they created a physical 3-D model relating energy equilibrium.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

194

Mrs. Brown and her students used their phones and laptops to collect data and document their
constructed 3-D models. The students also used Google Docs to share files with each other and
complete the assigned tasks. In this particular activity, it was evident that Mrs. Brown employed
technology to supplement her instruction and engage the students collaboratively.
I presented in the Instructional Delivery section the class activity demonstrating how
Mrs. Brown provided her students the opportunity to create a physical model of the scientific
concepts relating energy equilibrium as they worked in groups. In the beginning of the class
activity, Mrs. Brown prompted the class:
Mrs. B: I got 2 main things that I want you guys to finish. One of them is the
penny worksheet. What is the point of creating a model?
William: To make a visual aid.
Mrs. B: Visual aid? You’re creating a…[a student interrupted Mrs. Brown and she
was unable to complete her sentence]
S: To show the equilibrium.
S: Input and output.
Mrs. B: If you are in an equilibrium, what does that mean? [students opened up
their laptops while Mrs. Brown was talking] I want you guys to create
models. I want you guys to take pictures this time. I want you guys to
make 3-D effects of the model, so take pictures straight on. The link that is
in the doc [Google Docs]…so use your resources…your pennies are
here…so someone needs to come up.
In response to Mrs. Brown’s instructions, Marco and Omar stood up, walked over, and grabbed a
cup of pennies from Mrs. Brown’s desk. Meanwhile, Daisy got up and passed back the Energy
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

195

Balance Recording Sheet that Mrs. Brown had collected in the previous class. Mrs. Brown also
walked around and passed back the Energy Balance Recording Sheet. Daisy continued passing
back the recording sheets, while Mrs. Brown walked back to the front and projected the agenda
on the white board. While standing in front of the class, Mrs. Brown looked at her laptop, leaned
forward, and asked the class, “Can we talk about this?” Mrs. Brown referred to the Overview of
Energy Pathways (Appendix H, p. 4) shown on the white board. Mrs. Brown then walked toward
Kekoa’s group and answered a few questions. Mrs. Brown turned around and spoke, “Class, you
can take pictures.” Mrs. Brown walked over to Aiden’s group, immediately left, and walked back
over to her desk. Blaise counted the pennies as he stood in front of Diamond. Mrs. Brown
informed the class:
Mrs. B: Class, I’m okay with you guys using your phone. You can send yourself
an email? I did not know you could do that. How do you do that?
Kekoa: I do that all the time.
In this portion of the class activity, the data showed that Mrs. Brown and her students
cooperated and produced together in pursuit of constructing multimodal representations of
energy equilibrium using their phones, laptops, and Google Docs. Mrs. Brown initiated the class
activity by asking her students to construct multimodal representations of energy equilibrium. In
response to Mrs. Brown’s prompt, the students immediately got up and gathered their materials.
Daisy cooperated with Mrs. Brown by helping her pass back the recording sheets. Mrs. Brown
assisted her students in pursuit of constructing the multimodal representations of energy
equilibrium by visiting each group and provided short feedback on their progress. Here, the data
showed that Mrs. Brown took an active role in promoting cooperation with this part of the class
activity. Mrs. Brown had previously assigned the students in groups prior to this activity. Mrs.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

196

Brown provided the resources, both physically (e.g., pennies, recording sheets) and digitally
(e.g., electronic files on Google Docs, website) to facilitate the documentation of student data.
Mrs. Brown wanted her students to take pictures of the student 3-D models using their phones to
represent their constructed work. Mrs. Brown and her students used Google Docs and their email
to share their pictures and digital files related to the activity. It was evident that Mrs. Brown and
the students utilized the technology as a tool to document and share student data during the
investigation. Mrs. Brown capitalized on the students’ familiarity with their own technology
(e.g., student phones, laptop) in order to gather data.
In order to understand the context of the conversations between Mrs. Brown and the
students as they cooperated, I also examined the discourses that took place during the
construction of the 3-D models. Mrs. Brown stood in front of Gloria and spoke:
Mrs. B: So you are going to take that and put 2. [Mrs. Brown referred to the
placement of the pennies and demonstrated to Gloria as she was talking]
Gloria: How did you do that?
Mrs. B: By reading the directions.
Mrs. Brown then walked over to Ruben, looked at his laptop, and asked, “I need to see the docs.”
[Mrs. Brown referred to the Google Docs] Ruben did not have the classwork on Google Docs
and had something else on the laptop. Mrs. Brown then walked away and went to Trisen’s group.
Mason and Blaise counted the pennies while seated. Gina stacked the pennies as she stood across
from Blaise and Diamond. Gina leaned over and asked:
Gina: Do we need more? Did I say 28? Mrs. Brown, can we grab more pennies?
Mrs. B: Yes, you can.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

197

Gina: That is 49. [Blaise got up, walked to the front, and grabbed pennies]
Mason, count them. [Gina walked to the front, grabbed pennies, and stood
next to Blaise] This is 24. We do not need more. [Mason counted the
pennies]
Mason: There is [sic] 28.
Gina: So all of them are supposed to be 100?
Blaise: There is 49 [sic]. I told you Diamond. [Gina grabbed Diamond’s laptop
and turned it facing her. Gina looked up and read the instructions]
Gina: 23 plus 7, plus 49. [Diamond grabbed the laptop and read the instructions]
Here, it was evident that the teacher and students cooperated together and interacted with
each other to construct their 3-D models using technology as their guide. Mrs. Brown
demonstrated to Gloria what she needed to do to complete the task. Mrs. Brown prompted Ruben
to provide evidence of his work on Google Docs. In both cases, Mrs. Brown interacted with the
students to keep them on task. The interactions of Gina, Mason, Blaise, and Diamond indicated
their pursuit of constructing the 3-D model through collaboration. For example, Gina took an
active role in counting the pennies in their group. Gina instructed Mason to count the pennies,
while Blaise grabbed more pennies from Mrs. Brown’s desk. Both Gina and Diamond used the
laptop to ensure that they were following the instructions on Google Docs. Here, it was evident
that Gina and Diamond used technology to complete Mrs. Brown’s assigned tasks. However,
these assigned tasks were not cognitively demanding.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Brown explained to Trisen about “Part 2: Surface Energy Budget”
(Appendix H, p. 7). Trisen asked, “So that is Part 2?” Mrs. Brown replied, “Yes, that is Part 2.”
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

198

Mrs. Brown left and walked over to Agnes’ group. Gina grabbed Blaise’s phone and took a
photo of the stacked pennies. Diamond took another photo sideways.
Mrs. Brown walked over to Aiden’s group. She stated, “These are recycled…these other
ones [Mrs. Brown pointed at the pennies] are not part of the process. You should have your 100
pennies.” Mrs. Brown grabbed a few pennies from Aiden’s group and counted them. Mrs. Brown
placed the pennies on Aiden’s table and stacked them up, and asked, “So who is taking the
picture?” Trisen exclaimed, “Mrs. Brown, we are done!” Mrs. Brown heard Trisen and walked
over. Mrs. Brown stood between Trisen and Heidi, leaned over to read Heidi’s laptop, and then
commented, “You guys are good.” Mrs. Brown then left.
Here, Mrs. Brown took an active role in keeping her students on task by visiting each
group and modeling the way she wanted them to construct the 3-D energy models. Although
Mrs. Brown guided the students to remain on task and prompted them to use the technology, the
students used the technology without her direct instructions on how to use them for the activity.
Mrs. Brown encouraged her students to use their phones, but the students used their prior
knowledge on the use of their phones for taking photos. Although it was evident that the activity
was teacher-driven, Mrs. Brown encouraged student ownership during data collection when she
provided her students the opportunity to use the technology during data collection (e.g., taking
photos of the 3-D models).
The four students in Kekoa’s group were on their laptops. Mrs. Brown instructed Kekoa’s
group, “Start working on the questions. Once you are done taking pictures, start working on the
questions.” Trisen asked Mrs. Brown, “Where do we put the pictures?” Diamond raised her hand
and asked for Mrs. Brown’s attention, “Mrs. Brown! Where do we put the picture?” Mrs. Brown
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

199

responded to Diamond, “At the bottom of the doc [Google Docs].” Diamond then inserted the
photo in the document on Google Docs.
Here, although the students used technology to collect data, Mrs. Brown failed to provide
the necessary information for her students to complete the data collection tasks. It was evident
that although the technology was available for the students to collect data, the activity could not
be completed without Mrs. Brown’s full instructions. This suggests, in this case, that technology
is inadequate on its own without the teacher’s full instructions to support class activities.
Mrs. Brown asked the class, “Who else still has pennies?” Mrs. Brown walked from the
front of the class to Ruben’s group. At this time, students were on their laptops. Gina opened a
document on her laptop. She opened the same document file that Diamond was working on
earlier. Gina checked the photo on her laptop. Diamond answered the questions on her laptop.
The website [Earth Observation] contained the same questions that students had worked on the
week prior. Mrs. Brown informed the class, “Use the link to help facilitate answering the
questions.” Diamond talked to Gina, “You have to add everything.” Gina looked at the “Climate
and Earth’s Energy Balance” website. This website contained the same questions that the class
had worked on previously. Blaise and Gina had two windows on their laptops. On the first
window, the laptop showed, “Earth Lab” while the questions (Questions #8-22) were shown on
the second window.
Here, the students answered the activity questions cooperatively by working on the
shareable file through Google Docs on their individual laptops. In this portion of the class
activity, the students worked together and did not ask for Mrs. Brown’s assistance. Mrs. Brown
suggested to use the Earth Observation website as a source of information to help the students
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

200

answer the activity questions. It was evident that Mrs. Brown employed the Earth Observation
website to supplement her teaching and facilitate the student completion of the assigned tasks.
Conclusion
Using the conceptual framework in this case study, I examined and analyzed Mrs.
Brown’s teaching practices and how she used the technology to support inquiry in her eighth
grade science class. In this investigation, I focused on Mrs. Brown’s teaching practices in the
context of instructional delivery, inquiry process, contextualized learning, and collaboration. The
data in this investigation showed that Mrs. Brown used time and resources, including teaching-
based technological tools, to support productive learning of science with opportunities to
interpret and construct multimodal representations in her class. Although Mrs. Brown used time
and resources, it was not evident that authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) took
place. The data showed that although Mrs. Brown used technological tools to engage her
students in the scientific processes, the activities did not foster complex thinking by the students.
Mrs. Brown and her students demonstrated the features of the orientation and exploration stages
of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005) as they engaged in a simple observation (Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002) type of inquiry using a teacher-centered approach. The data showed that Mrs.
Brown provided an opportunity for her students to make meaning of and experience a curriculum
that was relevant to their lives and interests using technology. It was evident that when
contextualizing the lesson, Mrs. Brown paid attention to her students’ responses during discourse
and used them as a new context for learning. The data showed that Mrs. Brown made
curriculum-to-curriculum and curriculum-to-self connections (Wyatt, 2016) when teaching
Standby Power mode. The data also showed that Mrs. Brown and her students cooperated as they
created physical 3-D models relating energy equilibrium. It was evident that Mrs. Brown
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

201

employed technology to supplement her instruction and engage the students to work
collaboratively.
Mrs. Brown used time and resources, including teaching-based technological tools, to
support productive learning of science with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal
representations in her eight grade science class. In this study, I focused on one specific lesson
demonstrating the way Mrs. Brown structured the class time. Mrs. Brown structured the class
time into three parts. In the first part, Mrs. Brown spent 9 minutes activating student prior
knowledge and orienting the students before conducting a hands-on investigation relating the
Earth’s energy budget. In the second part, Mrs. Brown spent 32 minutes facilitating student
interactions and providing students sufficient time to engage in active learning. In the third part
(the following class period), Mrs. Brown spent 40 minutes providing her students an opportunity
to engage in active learning as they created a physical model of the scientific concepts relating
energy equilibrium, an extension of the previous activity. Over the course of the class
investigation, Mrs. Brown deployed resources such as manipulatives and educational
technological tools to help students interpret scientific concepts and construct multimodal
representations. Although Mrs. Brown used time and resources to support productive learning of
science with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal representations in her eighth
grade science class, it was not evident that authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002)
took place. Over the course of the class investigation on Earth’s energy budget, Mrs. Brown
supported simple inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
The data showed that although Mrs. Brown used technological tools to engage students in
scientific processes, the activities did not foster complex thinking by the students. Mrs. Brown
asked her students to engage with evidence through data collection, but did not engage her
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

202

students with student-initiated questioning, hypothesis, or construction of their own ideas. Mrs.
Brown engaged her students in a simple observation (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) type of inquiry
using a teacher-centered approach. Mrs. Brown and her students demonstrated the features of the
orientation and exploration stages, but did not demonstrate the features of the concept formation,
application, or closure stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005).
It was evident that Mrs. Brown provided an opportunity for her students to make meaning
of and experience a curriculum that was relevant to their lives and interests using technology. In
one particular lesson on Standby Power, Mrs. Brown focused on electrical safety and Standby
Power of electrical devices commonly found and used at home. In this lesson, Mrs. Brown
engaged her students in simple inquiry, not authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra,
2002). Mrs. Brown engaged her students during scaffolding by asking them to share examples of
devices they thought would use Standby Power. Mrs. Brown and her students utilized Google
Docs as she guided them during scaffolding. During scaffolding, Mrs. Brown expanded on
student responses by contextualizing how the student-generated examples of devices
demonstrated the features of Standby Power. It was evident that when contextualizing the lesson,
Mrs. Brown paid attention to her students’ responses during discourse, and used them as a new
context for learning. The data showed that Mrs. Brown made curriculum-to-curriculum and
curriculum-to-self connections (Wyatt, 2016) when teaching Standby Power. To contextualize
the lesson on Standby Power, Mrs. Brown utilized educational technological tools. Mrs. Brown
utilized Vampire Manor, an interactive website, to engage students as they independently
explored at home the topic relating Standby Power. Mrs. Brown and her students utilized the
Energy Use Monitor Belkin device during class to demonstrate how electrical power was
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

203

determined and calculated. Mrs. Brown ended the class activity by making the connection
between the cost of electrical power and living in Hawaii.
The data showed that Mrs. Brown and her students cooperated as they created physical 3-
D models relating energy equilibrium. Mrs. Brown and her students used their phones and
laptops to collect data and document their constructed 3-D models. The students also used
Google Docs to share files with each other and complete the assigned tasks. In the construction
of the 3-D model activity on energy equilibrium, it was evident that Mrs. Brown employed
technology to supplement her instruction and engage the students collaboratively.
Cross-Case Analysis
My conceptual framework focused on four thematic constructs: instructional delivery,
inquiry process, contextualized learning, and collaboration. In this study, I asserted that the four
thematic constructs supported students’ scientific inquiry, through the use of technology, in the
context of a classroom environment.
In my cross-case analysis, I will explore the following patterns that emerged from the
analysis of how Ms. Anderson and Mrs. Brown supported students’ inquiry in science, through
the lenses of instructional delivery, inquiry process, contextualized learning, and collaboration:
• The use of time and technology supports simple inquiry
• Technological tools engage students in scientific processes and simple inquiry, but
not complex thinking or student questioning, during inquiry process
• Technology use supports student engagement in simple inquiry, with or without
contextualized learning
• Technology use supports cooperation and engagement in simple inquiry, with or
without the development of scientific knowledge
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

204

The Use of Time and Technology Supports Simple Inquiry
Ms. Anderson and Mrs. Brown used time and technology to support inquiry in science
with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal representations. However, their use of
time and technology supported simple inquiry, not authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn &
Malhotra, 2002).
Ms. Anderson used time and student routines to support inquiry in her Integrated Science
class. The data showed that Ms. Anderson utilized time to support inquiry in science with
opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal representations. One way Ms. Anderson used
time was she structured or implemented her lesson with a sufficient amount of time to allow her
to provide her students with the instructional scaffolding necessary to enable students to engage
in independent practice in inquiry. Ms. Anderson structured the time into three parts and
deployed instructional scaffolding in each. In the first two parts, Ms. Anderson spent 25 minutes
structuring her lesson with a sufficient amount of time to allow her to provide her students with
the instructional delivery necessary to enable students to engage in independent practice in
inquiry. In the last part, Ms. Anderson spent 13 minutes allowing for student independent
practice with room for student interactions. Ms. Anderson had the students work in pairs/groups
while she visited each pair/group and engaged in small conversations with them.
Ms. Anderson used student routines (Leinhardt et al., 1987), such as management
routines and support routines (through the application of technological tools), to support inquiry
in science with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal representations. Ms.
Anderson’s management routines promoted her class to transition seamlessly from one activity
to the next. In one class for example, during the first transition, Ms. Anderson gave the class an
explicit cue immediately after the students had entered the classroom. She prompted the class,
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

205

“It’s Monday morning and what do we have to do?...Do it!” Ms. Anderson’s use of the cue
prompted her students to read the morning bulletin on their iPads. In the second transition, Ms.
Anderson re-grouped the students before allowing them to discuss about Le Châtelier’s
Principle. The quick re-organization of the class to move on to the formal class instruction
allowed Ms. Anderson to transition fluidly and efficiently, and focus more on the pair/group-
based class activity relating Le Châtelier’s Principle instead of managing the class. Ms.
Anderson used support routines through the application of AirDrop, Notability, Nearpod, and
Moodle, to support the students’ ability to interact with the ideas that she wanted them to interact
with in her Integrated Science class. Ms. Anderson used these technology-based teaching tools to
specify the actions necessary for a learning-teaching exchange to take place. Ms. Anderson used
support routines to allow for student-student and teacher-student interactions, to increase
cognitive demand when students worked on balancing chemical equations, to guide students to
catch up on work missed during absence, and to support students as they reflected on their
experience during class. Although Ms. Anderson used time and student routines to support
inquiry in science, the data showed that she engaged her students in simple inquiry, not authentic
scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), which were evident in the student cognitive
processes involved during the class activities.
Similar to Ms. Anderson’s teaching, Mrs. Brown used time and resources, including
manipulatives and teaching-based technological tools, to support productive learning of science
with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal representations in her eighth grade
science class. For example, Mrs. Brown structured the class time into three parts. In the first part,
Mrs. Brown spent 9 minutes activating student prior knowledge and orienting the students before
conducting a hands-on investigation. In the second part, Mrs. Brown spent 32 minutes
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

206

facilitating student interactions and providing students sufficient time to engage in active
learning. In this block of time, Mrs. Brown provided students opportunities to interpret and
construct multimodal representations of the Earth’s energy budget using different learning
modalities (e.g., visual, auditory, and tactile/kinesthetic). In the third part (the following class
period), Mrs. Brown spent 40 minutes providing her students an opportunity to create a physical
model of the scientific concepts relating energy equilibrium, an extension of the previous
activity. In this block of time, Mrs. Brown engaged her students in active learning when she
asked her students to create a physical model and take a photo of it as evidence of their work.
Mrs. Brown deployed manipulatives and teaching-based technological tools to help students
interpret scientific concepts and construct multimodal representations over the course of the
investigation. The data showed that over the course of the class investigation on Earth’s energy
budget, Mrs. Brown’s students performed simple inquiry, not authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn
& Malhotra, 2002).
Technological Tools Engage Students in Scientific Processes and Simple Inquiry, But Not
Complex Thinking or Student Questioning, During Inquiry Process
Ms. Anderson and Mrs. Brown used technological tools to engage students in scientific
processes and simple inquiry. However, neither teacher fostered complex thinking by the
students or provided the opportunity for their students to generate the questions, during inquiry
process.
Although Ms. Anderson used technological tools to facilitate students’ participation in
scientific processes in her Integrated Science class, the activities did not foster complex thinking
by the students. Ms. Anderson generated the questioning, rather than promoted the students’ use
of questioning during the inquiry process in class. For example, Ms. Anderson asked her students
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

207

to continue to make observations and take notes on the Le Châtelier’s Principle Lab Video on
Nearpod using individual student iPads. Although Ms. Anderson asked scaffolding questions,
she did not provide her students the opportunity to think about her posed questions or use student
responses to make sense of the phenomenon (e.g., a chemical reaction). Instead, she answered
her own questions and provided the concept that she wanted her students to understand. By
examining Ms. Anderson’s explanation, it was evident that she would ask questions in an attempt
to make her students think about what she wanted them to know (e.g., What’s the chemical
reaction sitting there...What happens if I add heat to the reaction...What happens if I remove
heat?) However, she would answer her own questions instead of having her students think
through the questions and answer the questions, which would have led to active student
participation (e.g., If I add heat…energy always goes from high to low…from hot to
cold...energy always goes from high to low…) Furthermore, Ms. Anderson invented the concept
for the students when she stated, “The change in the color is the reaction, not diffusion…” Ms.
Anderson continued to demonstrate this pattern of a teacher-centered questioning strategy even
though one of the students responded to her question, “What’s one option to remove water?”
Miguel replied, “Boil it.” Ms. Anderson explained how heat would affect the reaction, but did
not use the opportunity to have Miguel explain his reasoning. Ms. Anderson then informed the
class, “What’s the one that you don’t need to worry about? When there’s a precipitant.” Ms.
Anderson did not explain further or challenge the students to think about the role of having a
precipitant in a chemical reaction. Although Ms. Anderson’s students worked through exercises
using their iPads, they did not use their new knowledge to do so. Instead, the students continued
to make observations and take notes as they listened to Ms. Anderson, and worked through
exercises, not necessarily using their new knowledge.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

208

The data also showed that Ms. Anderson used technological tools to engage her students
in inquiry process during the various stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). The data
showed that Ms. Anderson’s class demonstrated the orientation, exploration, and concept
formation stages, but did not exhibit features of the application or closure stages of the learning
cycle. The data further showed that Ms. Anderson’s students performed simple inquiry, not
authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), as they engaged in the various stages of
the learning cycle.
Similar to Ms. Anderson’s teaching, the data showed that although Mrs. Brown used
technological tools to engage students in inquiry process, the activities did not foster complex
thinking by the students. Mrs. Brown asked her students to engage with evidence through data
collection, but did not engage her students with questioning, hypothesis, or construction of their
own ideas. For example, it was evident during the exploration stage that Mrs. Brown asked her
students to record their data. However, Mrs. Brown did not assign cognitively demanding tasks
when she engaged her students with evidence during data collection. The tasks that Mrs. Brown
asked her students to perform were simple and unsophisticated. Although the students conversed
with each other while measuring the electrical output of the appliances, their level of inquiry was
limited to the structure set by Mrs. Brown. It was not evident that Mrs. Brown or her students
asked higher-level critical thinking questions during the exploration stage. What was evident was
passive engagement of students using a teacher-centered guided inquiry approach. For example,
Mrs. Brown told Agnes to write a note that the electrical output was higher when the microwave
door was opened compared to the electrical output when the microwave door was closed. Mrs.
Brown did not ask Agnes why there was a difference, or to share Agnes’ reasoning or thought
process behind the electrical output difference.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

209

The data also showed that Mrs. Brown engaged her students in simple observation type
of inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) using a teacher-centered approach. Mrs. Brown and her
students demonstrated the features of the orientation and exploration stages, but did not
demonstrate the features of the concept formation, application, or closure stages of the learning
cycle (Hanson, 2005).
Technology Use Supports Student Engagement in Simple Inquiry, With or Without
Contextualized Learning
Although both Ms. Anderson and Mrs. Brown used technology to engage students in
simple inquiry, not authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), only Mrs. Brown
demonstrated the features of contextualized learning in her teaching.
Ms. Anderson used analogies to help her students make meaning of balancing chemical
equations. However, Ms. Anderson’s students did not experience a curriculum that was relevant
to their lives and interests through Ms. Anderson’s use of analogies. Ms. Anderson did not
connect teaching and curriculum to her students’ personal, family, or community experiences
and skills. Ms. Anderson presented information during class in a decontextualized, drill-like
manner, in which scientific concepts were presented in isolation (Doherty et al., 2003). For
example, in Ms. Anderson’s explanation on Le Châtelier’s Principle and balancing chemical
equations, there were three important science concepts that she did not elaborate which involved
making meaning of balancing equations. First, Ms. Anderson mentioned, “…You can only buy
food in certain forms…” Ms. Anderson did not clarify that there was an energy cost involved in
the chemical reactions. Second, she mentioned, “…we are going to buy certain quantities of each
to get this and that…” Ms. Anderson did not explain that the quantity of each chemical reaction
component played a role in any given reaction. Third, Ms. Anderson mentioned, “…We only buy
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

210

this ingredient and buy that ingredient, and make something at the end…” Ms. Anderson did not
expound on the idea that certain reactants yielded products in any given reaction. Ms. Anderson
used an analogy but was not explicit how it related to balancing chemical equations or chemical
reactions in general.
The data showed that Ms. Anderson’s overemphasis on a single set of procedures such as
balancing chemical equations, rather than making connections to other science concepts and
bigger ideas, did not support authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Although
Ms. Anderson’s students conducted research through the CRP to experience the world beyond
their own context using technology, they did not participate in authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn
& Malhotra, 2002). The data demonstrated that Ms. Anderson engaged her students with
standard scientific explanations of the world by asking them to describe or explain the chemistry-
based topics through Internet-based research. However, Ms. Anderson did not ask her students to
demonstrate their own understanding of the scientific topics through the development of their
explanations of phenomena.
In contrast to Ms. Anderson’s teaching, it was evident that when contextualizing the
lesson, Mrs. Brown paid attention to her students’ responses during discourse, and used them as
a new context for learning. The data showed that Mrs. Brown made curriculum-to-curriculum
and curriculum-to-self connections (Wyatt, 2016) when teaching Standby Power. For example,
by having the students generate examples of electrical devices that may or may not use Standby
Power, Mrs. Brown utilized prior knowledge in the form of student responses to learn the
concept that she wanted her students to know. When the students shared their examples of
devices, Mrs. Brown provided the context whether the devices used Standby Power or not. Mrs.
Brown explained, “Coffee maker, because it has a clock…girls would leave their curling iron
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

211

on…if there’s a little light on it, then it’s using the Standby mode…if you leave and it’s [lamp]
on, then it’s wasting and not on Standby mode…” When Mrs. Brown explained whether the
electrical devices used Standby Power or not, she provided an opportunity to increase the
associations between what her students knew and what she wanted them to learn. It was evident
that when contextualizing the lesson, Mrs. Brown did not simply make any association to the
new content being introduced or frontload the students to build background knowledge. Instead,
Mrs. Brown paid attention to her students’ responses and used them as a new context for
learning.
To contextualize the lesson on Standby Power, Mrs. Brown utilized teaching-based
technological tools. Although Mrs. Brown contextualized the lesson, she engaged her students in
simple inquiry, not authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).
Technology Use Supports Cooperation and Engagement in Simple Inquiry, With or
Without the Development of Scientific Knowledge
Although Ms. Anderson and Mrs. Brown used technology to support student cooperation
and engagement in simple inquiry, Ms. Anderson did not support the student development of
scientific knowledge, but Mrs. Brown did.
Ms. Anderson’s use of peer review during class provided the students an opportunity to
cooperate and work together using technological tools as they worked on the CRP. However,
neither Ms. Anderson nor her students demonstrated the development of scientific knowledge in
pursuit of supporting authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Ms. Anderson’s
students focused on providing feedback on the presentation during peer review, as opposed to
developing scientific knowledge through providing feedback on the content of the CRP
presentation. For example, although Ms. Anderson and her students demonstrated cooperation as
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

212

they worked on CRP and participated in peer review, they did not engage in argument from
evidence. Rather, their focus during peer review was on the performance of the presentation. Ms.
Anderson informed the class, “You’re going to make constructive reviews…They have to be
constructive.” Creating constructive reviews, if Ms. Anderson’s students created them, did not
promote active discourse or involve cognitively demanding tasks among Ms. Anderson’s
students. In order for students to think critically and experience authentic scientific inquiry
during collaborative peer review, they must practice how to engage in argument from evidence.
Engagement in one of the practices of inquiry, more specifically engagement in argument from
evidence, therefore, was lacking in Ms. Anderson’s CRP and peer review class activities.
In contrast to Ms. Anderson and her students, the data showed that Mrs. Brown and her
students cooperated as they engaged in simple inquiry involving the creation of a physical 3-D
model relating energy equilibrium. For example, the interactions of Gina, Mason, Blaise, and
Diamond indicated their pursuit of constructing the 3-D model through collaboration. Gina took
an active role in counting the pennies in their group. Gina instructed Mason to count the pennies,
while Blaise grabbed more pennies from Mrs. Brown’s desk. Both Gina and Diamond used the
laptop to ensure that they were following the instructions on Google Docs. It was evident that
Gina and Diamond used the technology to complete Mrs. Brown’s assigned tasks. However,
these assigned tasks were not cognitively demanding.
Mrs. Brown and her students used their phones and laptops to collect data and document
their constructed 3-D models. The students also used Google Docs to share files with each other
and complete the assigned tasks. In the construction of the 3-D model activity on energy
equilibrium, it was evident that Mrs. Brown employed technology to supplement her instruction
and engage the students collaboratively. For example, Mrs. Brown instructed Kekoa’s group,
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

213

“Start working on the questions. Once you are done taking pictures, start working on the
questions.” Trisen asked Mrs. Brown, “Where do we put the pictures?” Diamond raised her hand
and asked for Mrs. Brown’s attention, “Mrs. Brown! Where do we put the picture?” Mrs. Brown
responded to Diamond, “At the bottom of the doc [Mrs. Brown referred to the Google Docs].”
Diamond then inserted the photo in the document on Google Docs.
Conclusion
The analysis of the data revealed that four major themes emerged as significant patterns.
These four themes included:
• The use of time and technology supports simple inquiry
• Technological tools engage students in scientific processes, but not complex thinking
or student questioning, during inquiry process
• Technology use supports student engagement in simple inquiry, with or without
contextualized learning
• Technology use supports cooperation and engagement in simple inquiry, with or
without the development of scientific knowledge
Patterns emerged that created a picture of how the teacher participants used technology to
support inquiry in a science classroom. In order to support inquiry in science with opportunities
to interpret and construct multimodal representations, the teacher has to use time and technology.
Furthermore, the teacher may use technological tools to engage students in scientific processes
during inquiry process. Technology use may also support cooperation and student engagement in
inquiry. However, the use of technological tools may not engage students in complex thinking or
student questioning in the various stages of the learning cycle, involve contextualized learning,
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

214

or develop scientific knowledge. These patterns provide insights into understanding the ways
teachers use technology to support inquiry in a science classroom.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

215

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN
RELATION TO PRACTICE, POLICY, AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This dissertation examined the teaching practices and how teachers used technology to
support inquiry in science classes. A qualitative multi-case study was conducted to address the
research question: What teaching practices, with emphasis on how technology is used, do
teachers employ to support inquiry in a science class?
In order to answer the research question, I used purposeful sampling to select two science
teachers who had been teaching for at least five years and with the reputation for employing
effective instructional strategies, encouraging collaboration, making teaching and learning of
science relevant to their students’ lives, supporting student questioning when teaching scientific
processes, and using technology regularly when teaching science. The data that I collected to
answer the research question included in-person interviews prior to classroom observations, 16
total direct classroom observations for both teacher participants, a review of teacher-created
documents and artifacts that were generated specifically for the lessons, and a final interview
with each teacher participant.
In this study, the teacher participants provided invaluable opportunities to examine the
teaching practices and how technology was used in the classroom to support scientific inquiry.
Their participation provided opportunities to answer the research question and achieve the
purpose of the study. The intent of this multi-case study was not to evaluate the teacher
participants. Rather, the intent was to examine the teaching practices and the ways the teacher
participants used the technology to support scientific inquiry. The data analysis and findings of
this study provided insights into ways for the teacher participants and stakeholders to improve
the current teaching practices and technology affordances to support scientific inquiry.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

216

Summary of Findings
Ms. Anderson
Ms. Anderson was a ninth grade teacher who used time and student routines to support
simple inquiry in her Integrated Science class. The data showed that Ms. Anderson utilized time
and student routines (Leinhardt et al., 1987), such as management and support routines to
support inquiry in science with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal
representations. Ms. Anderson used time through the application of instructional scaffolding to
support student inquiry. Ms. Anderson structured the time into three parts and deployed
instructional scaffolding in each. She had the students work in pairs/groups while she visited
each pair/group and engaged in small conversations with the students. Ms. Anderson’s
management routines promoted her class to transition seamlessly from one activity to the next.
The data showed that Ms. Anderson’s use of management routines set the stage for inquiry by
orienting students before engaging in the class activity. By orienting the students, Ms. Anderson
prepared them for learning. Ms. Anderson then provided the students with the learning objectives
and criteria so they knew the expectations during the activity. Although Ms. Anderson’s use of
management routines set the stage for inquiry by orienting the students before engaging in the
main class activity, the use of management routines to support authentic scientific inquiry for the
remainder of the learning cycle (e.g., exploration, concept formation, application, and closure)
(Hanson, 2005) was not evident. Ms. Anderson also used support routines through the
application of AirDrop, Notability, Nearpod, and Moodle, to support the students’ ability to
interact with the ideas that she wanted them to interact with. Ms. Anderson used these
educational technologies to specify the actions necessary for a learning-teaching exchange to
take place. Ms. Anderson used support routines to allow for student-student and teacher-student
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

217

interactions, to increase cognitive demand when students worked on balancing chemical
equations, and to support students as they reflected on their experiences during class. Although
Ms. Anderson used support routines through the application of Moodle to specify the actions
necessary for her students to engage in the activity, only the closure feature of authentic
scientific inquiry was evident in the observed class activity. The other features of the learning
cycle (e.g., orientation, exploration, concept formation, application) (Hanson, 2005), however,
were not evident.
Although Ms. Anderson used technological tools to facilitate students’ participation in
scientific processes, the activities did not foster complex thinking by the students, and the
questioning was generated by Ms. Anderson rather than promoted their use of questioning during
the inquiry process. Ms. Anderson used technological tools such as Nearpod to engage her
students with questioning during the orientation stage of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). Ms.
Anderson prepared the students for learning and made connections with prior knowledge, but did
not create student interest or provide the motivation for the activity. During the orientation stage,
Ms. Anderson used Nearpod to direct the students’ attention. Ms. Anderson used questionings to
activate student prior knowledge. Ms. Anderson used questionings to communicate information
to students that she believed was important to set the students up for the next activity. It was not
evident that Ms. Anderson sparked the students’ curiosity or motivated them to be actively
involved aside from taking notes. As expected, Ms. Anderson did not foster complex thinking in
the orientation stage. During the exploration stage (Hanson, 2005), Ms. Anderson used
technological tools to engage her students with questioning and scientific processes. Ms.
Anderson gave the students the opportunity to make an observation of a chemical reaction shown
on Nearpod. Ms. Anderson then encouraged her students to propose a hypothesis using their
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

218

iPads. However, Ms. Anderson did not give the students the opportunity to analyze data, or
question and test the students’ hypothesis during the exploration stage of the learning cycle
(Hanson, 2005). It was evident that the class demonstrated the orientation, exploration, and
concept formation stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). The class activity did not exhibit
features of the application or closure stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). And when the
class demonstrated the orientation, exploration, and concept formation stages, some features, but
not all, were evident. Ms. Anderson’s class spent most of the class time in the concept formation
stage. Ms. Anderson exhibited a teacher-centered questioning strategy when she asked multiple
scaffolding questions and answered most of them. When students answered her questions, Ms.
Anderson did not expand on the student responses or have the students explain their reasoning or
thought processes.
Ms. Anderson used analogies as part of her instructional strategy to help her students
make meaning of certain science concepts. However, the students did not experience a
curriculum that was relevant to their lives and interests through Ms. Anderson’s use of analogies.
Although Ms. Anderson and her students used technology to help the students experience the
world beyond their own context, it was not evident that Ms. Anderson’s class was linked with the
broader community. Based on the evidence, Ms. Anderson demonstrated some, but not all, of the
elements of contextualized learning in her teaching. Ms. Anderson did not connect teaching and
curriculum to her students’ personal, family, or community experiences and skills. Ms. Anderson
would present information during class in a decontextualized, drill-like manner, which is in
agreement with Tharp et al. (2000) and Doherty et al. (2003) arguments on teaching practices
relating decontextualized learning. This notion of teaching in a decontextualized, drill-like
manner, was a recurring teaching practice in Ms. Anderson’s class. Over the course of my
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

219

classroom visits, Ms. Anderson focused her lessons mostly on balancing chemical equations. The
overemphasis on a single set of procedures such as balancing chemical equations, instead of
making connections to other science concepts and bigger ideas, did not support authentic
scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). To help the students learn about the role of Le
Châtelier’s Principle and balancing chemical equations beyond the classroom, Ms. Anderson
assigned her students the CRP. Ms. Anderson’s students used their individual iPads and the
Internet as they conducted their research and answered the questions relating CRP. Although Ms.
Anderson provided an opportunity for her students to experience the world beyond their own
context using technology, Ms. Anderson did not provide an opportunity for her students to work
on a topic of student interest relating chemistry or generate their own research questions. Instead,
Ms. Anderson provided the research topics that she wanted her students to explore, as well as the
research questions for them to answer. Although Ms. Anderson’s students conducted research
through CRP to experience the world beyond their own context using technology, they did not
participate in authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Ms. Anderson did not ask
her students to demonstrate their own understanding of the scientific topics through the
development of their own explanations of phenomena.
Ms. Anderson and her students cooperated and produced together using technological
tools to facilitate interactions and exchange of ideas as they worked on CRP. However, neither
Ms. Anderson nor her students demonstrated the development of scientific knowledge in pursuit
of supporting authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). During the CRP activity,
Ms. Anderson created a learning environment where students worked together in partnerships to
accomplish the tasks that she wanted them to work on. Ms. Anderson formed a class structure
where her students cooperated and produced together using technological tools that facilitated
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

220

interactions and the exchange of ideas as they worked on CRP. Although Ms. Anderson utilized
a collaborative learning strategy forming a structure conducive for completion of the assigned
tasks using technological tools, it was not evident in this case that Ms. Anderson supported
authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) through student cooperation. The tasks and
ideas that Ms. Anderson wanted her students to work on during CRP were teacher-generated,
algorithmic, rigid, and non-innovative. Although the students worked together using
technological tools, they demonstrated some, but not all, of the elements of collaboration to
support authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Ms. Anderson’s use of peer
review provided the students an opportunity to cooperate and work together using technological
tools as they worked on CRP. Ms. Anderson’s students focused on providing feedback on the
presentation during peer review as opposed to developing scientific knowledge through
providing feedback on the content of the CRP presentation.
Mrs. Brown
Mrs. Brown used time and resources, including teaching-based technological tools, to
support productive learning of science with opportunities to interpret and construct multimodal
representations in her eighth grade science class. Mrs. Brown structured the class time into three
parts. Mrs. Brown activated student prior knowledge and oriented the students before conducting
a hands-on investigation. Mrs. Brown facilitated student interactions and provided students
sufficient time to engage in active learning. Mrs. Brown provided students opportunities to
interpret and construct multimodal representations of the Earth’s energy budget using different
learning modalities (e.g., visual, auditory, tactile/kinesthetic). Mrs. Brown engaged her students
in active learning when she asked her students to create physical models and take photos of the
models as evidence of their work relating energy equilibrium. Mrs. Brown deployed
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

221

manipulatives and teaching-based technological tools to help students interpret scientific
concepts and construct multimodal representations over the course of the energy equilibrium
investigation. Although Mrs. Brown used time and resources, including teaching-based
technological tools, to support productive learning of science with opportunities to interpret and
construct multimodal representations in her eighth grade science class, it was not evident that
authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) took place.
Although Mrs. Brown used technological tools to engage students in scientific processes,
the activities did not foster complex thinking by the students. Mrs. Brown asked her students to
engage with evidence through data collection, but did not engage her students with student-
initiated questioning, hypothesis, or construction of their own ideas. The data also showed that
Mrs. Brown engaged her students in a simple observation (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) type of
inquiry using a teacher-centered approach. Mrs. Brown and her students demonstrated the
features of the orientation and exploration stages, but did not demonstrate the features of the
concept formation, application, or closure stages of the learning cycle (Hanson, 2005). During
the orientation stage of the learning cycle, Mrs. Brown performed three tasks in a sequential
manner. These tasks provided Mrs. Brown the opportunities to distribute the Belkin devices, to
show the class agenda and describe the student tasks involving the handouts, and to demonstrate
the way she wanted her students to collect data as they investigated the Standby Power mode of
various appliances. Although Mrs. Brown gave her students the opportunity to start with a new
topic for investigation, the data showed that during the orientation stage, Mrs. Brown focused on
the procedural aspect of how the Belkin device worked, rather than created student interest or
stimulated curiosity. Mrs. Brown guided her students how to use the Belkin device, preparing
them for the exploration stage of the Standby Power mode investigation. However, it was not
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

222

evident that Mrs. Brown created student interest or provided the opportunity to read relevant
scientific theories relating Standby Power. During the exploration stage (Hanson, 2005), Mrs.
Brown provided her students the opportunity to independently collect data in groups on Standby
Power mode of appliances found in the classroom using the Belkin devices. It was evident that
the students performed the tasks that Mrs. Brown wanted them to do, which indicated that Mrs.
Brown used a teacher-centered approach to engaging students in inquiry. Although the students
were engaged with evidence during data collection, they were not engaged in conceptualization,
the process of stating theory-based questions and/or hypotheses (Pedaste et al., 2015) prior to
exploration. Mrs. Brown did not provide the students the opportunity to state the problem or ask
a research question for them to answer as part of the investigation. Student questioning, or the
process of generating research questions based on a stated problem (Pedaste et al., 2015) was not
evident during exploration. Mrs. Brown did not ask her students to engage in hypothesis
generation, the process of generating hypotheses regarding a stated problem, either. The absence
of student questioning or hypothesis generation suggested that the class investigation on Standby
Power mode was a teacher-guided simple observation (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) type of inquiry,
where the students observed and described objects. Mrs. Brown did not assign cognitively
demanding tasks when she engaged her students with evidence during data collection. It was not
evident that Mrs. Brown or her students asked higher-level critical thinking questions during the
exploration stage (Hanson, 2005). However, what was evident was passive engagement of
students using a teacher-centered guided inquiry approach.
Mrs. Brown provided an opportunity for her students to make meaning of and experience
a curriculum that was relevant to their lives and interests using technology. It was evident that
Mrs. Brown’s eighth grade science class was linked with the broader community. When Mrs.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

223

Brown demonstrated the features of contextualized learning, she engaged her students in simple
inquiry, not authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Mrs. Brown engaged her
students during scaffolding by asking them to share examples of devices they thought would use
Standby Power. Mrs. Brown and her students utilized Google Docs as she guided them during
scaffolding. During scaffolding, Mrs. Brown expanded on student responses by contextualizing
how the student-generated examples of devices demonstrated the features of Standby Power. It
was evident that when contextualizing the lesson, Mrs. Brown paid attention to her students’
responses during discourse, and used them as a new context for learning. By having the students
generate examples of electrical devices that may or may not use Standby Power, Mrs. Brown
utilized prior knowledge in the form of student responses to learn the concept that she wanted her
students to know. When the students shared their examples of devices, Mrs. Brown provided the
context whether the devices used Standby Power or not. When Mrs. Brown explained whether
the electrical devices used Standby Power or not, she provided an opportunity to increase the
associations between what her students knew and what she wanted them to learn. It was evident
that when contextualizing the lesson, Mrs. Brown did not simply make any association to the
new content being introduced or frontload the students to build background knowledge. Instead,
Mrs. Brown paid attention to her students’ responses and used them as a new context for
learning. The data showed that Mrs. Brown made curriculum-to-curriculum and curriculum-to-
self connections (Wyatt, 2016) when teaching about Standby Power. To contextualize the lesson
on Standby Power, Mrs. Brown utilized teaching-based technological tools. Mrs. Brown utilized
Vampire Manor, an interactive website, to engage students as they independently explored at
home the topic relating Standby Power.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

224

Mrs. Brown and her students cooperated and produced together in pursuit of constructing
a physical 3-D model relating energy equilibrium. Mrs. Brown and her students used their
phones and laptops to collect data and document their constructed 3-D models. The students also
used Google Docs to share files with each other and complete the assigned tasks. Mrs. Brown
took an active role in keeping her students on task by visiting each group and modeling the way
she wanted them to construct the 3-D energy models. Mrs. Brown encouraged her students to use
their phones and the students used their prior knowledge when using their phones for taking
photos. It was evident that Mrs. Brown employed technology to supplement her instruction and
engage the students collaboratively.
Implications and Recommendations
The use of educational technology in pursuit of supporting inquiry presents opportunities
and challenges for science teaching (Gerard, Varma, Corliss, & Linn, 2011; Pringle, Dawson, &
Ritzhaupt, 2015; Williams, Nguyen, & Mangan, 2017). To further our understanding in this area
of educational research and practice, this dissertation explored the teaching practices and how
teachers used technology to support inquiry in a science classroom. Analysis of the evidence in
this study revealed affordances in the way teachers used technology to support inquiry in the
context of a science classroom environment. In this section, I will discuss implications and
recommendations for practice, policy, and future research.
For Practice
The findings of this study indicate that both teacher participants supported simple inquiry
(Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), not authentic scientific inquiry, when they used technology in their
science classes over the course of the investigation. One possible reason for this practice could
be a lack of knowledge among the teacher participants necessary to engage their students in
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

225

authentic scientific inquiry. An implication for practice relates to having the knowledge of the
type of inquiry that teachers should have when teaching science. The findings in this study are
consistent with Chinn and Malhotra’s (2002) argument on teaching authentic scientific inquiry.
They (2002) reason that “many current school inquiry tasks bear little resemblance to authentic
scientific reasoning” (p. 213). They (2002) further argue that “it will surely not be sufficient
simply to develop authentic [inquiry] tasks…teachers must also know about reasoning strategies
that are effective with such tasks as well as effective instructional strategies to help students
master these reasoning strategies” (p. 213). The recommendation is that teachers must have the
knowledge of the type of inquiry as well as the practices necessary to engage students in
authentic scientific inquiry. Acquisition of such knowledge may be achieved through
engagement in professional development opportunities that offer the pedagogical content
knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and practices necessary to support authentic scientific
inquiry.
In this study, although both teacher participants and their corresponding students had in
their possession and used some form of technology over the course of the classroom
investigations, they demonstrated technology affordances that supported simple inquiry (Chinn
& Malhotra, 2002), not authentic scientific inquiry. It could be possible that the teacher
participants lacked the knowledge necessary to use technology for the purpose of supporting
authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). One implication involves having the
knowledge of the technology affordances that support authentic scientific inquiry. This
implication echoes the international evidence stating that “the provision of a tool per se isn’t
enough for it to be good for learning, if people don’t know what it’s for or how to use it”
(Wright, 2010, p. 13). The recommendation is that teachers must participate in professional
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

226

development opportunities that support technology-based knowledge integration fostering
authentic scientific inquiry. Gerard et al. (2011) found that “the degree to which the professional
development programs supported teachers to engage in a constructivist-oriented learning process
significantly influenced the participating teachers’ use of the technology to enhance students’
inquiry learning experience” (p. 426). Their (2011) research demonstrates professional
development features that supported teachers to add, distinguish, and integrate new practices
utilizing technology to enhance students’ inquiry learning experiences. The key features of the
professional development design that supported knowledge integration include “curriculum
customization rather than curriculum design, time to test and refine instruction, and sustain
collaboration with a mentor, colleagues, and university-based professional development
facilitators” (Gerard et al., 2011, p. 434). Thus, I recommend that science teachers must engage
in professional development opportunities with key features based on Gerard et al., (2011)
research, to support teachers in their pursuit of teaching authentic scientific inquiry. In addition, I
recommend that teachers must engage in professional development opportunities that focus on
the learning of the technological pedagogical knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Mishra and
Koehler (2006) argue that the technological pedagogical knowledge might provide:
…an understanding that a range of tools exists for a particular task, the ability to choose a
tool based on its fitness, strategies for using the tool’s affordances, and knowledge of
pedagogical strategies and the ability to apply those strategies for use of technologies …
(p. 1028)
Research shows that inservice professional development programs are the most common
approach to establishing the goals and designs of technology interventions, and to developing
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

227

teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (Davis, Petish, & Smithey, 2006; Mishra & Koehler,
2006; Supovitz, 2001).
In this dissertation, the teacher participants and their students used technology to engage
in simple inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). However, the use or enactment of reform-based
scientific practices (NRC, 2012) was not observed frequently over the course of the classroom
observations. Another implication for practice relates to student scientific practices when using
technology to support authentic scientific inquiry. The recent Conceptual Framework for New K-
12 Science Education Standards (NRC, 2012) suggests the use of the term “practices” instead of
“skills” to emphasize that engaging in scientific inquiry requires coordination of both knowledge
and skill, simultaneously. In this study, the teacher participants focused their teaching on the
student performance of the skills required to do inquiry, rather than the analysis and
interpretation of the data or an understanding about inquiry and its role in science. Osborne
(2014) premises that “in the eyes of many teachers, the primary goal of engaging in
inquiry…tends to be on the performance of the skills required to do inquiry” (p. 178). He (2014)
asserts that many teachers focus their teaching on the knowing how rather than knowing that or
knowing why. He (2014) further argues that “engaging students in scientific practices…will
make cognitive demands of a form that science education rarely does. Hence, asking students to
engage in practice can improve the quality of student learning” (p. 183). Osborne (2014)
predicates that “the duty of the teacher educator is to ensure that the foundations are sound and
that the future teacher is aware of what forms of knowledge are required for teaching and their
function” (p. 192). I recommend that teachers must have the knowledge of what the scientific
practices (NRC, 2012) are and how they are enacted in the classroom. The teachers should be
familiar with the 8 scientific practices (NRC, 2012) to be able to use them to support authentic
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

228

scientific inquiry. I also recommend that teachers must have the knowledge of the technology
affordances that foster the student enactment of the eight scientific practices.
While it is crucial for teachers to engage in professional development providing the
knowledge of inquiry-based pedagogies, knowledge of the technological affordances, as well as
the knowledge of the eight scientific practices, to support authentic scientific inquiry, another
implication relates to the role of school principals in teachers’ engagement in such professional
development programs. Bredeson (2000) argues that principals need to engage in practices that
support teachers’ professional development as teachers transform their continuous growth in
their work in schools. Bredeson (2000) posits that “creating a supportive environment in which
teachers can continue to grow and improve their professional practice is the second area where
principals exert significant influence on teacher learning and development in schools” (p. 393).
Bredeson (2000) further asserts:
The first and probably most important responsibility of the principal focuses on the
design of professional development…One way in which principals support their teachers
is by making certain that professional development resources and opportunities are
aligned with teacher’s and student’s needs, and school/district priorities. (p. 396)
I recommend that school principals must support inservice teachers by engaging them in
professional development opportunities to acquire, and possibly integrate, the knowledge
encompassing inquiry-based pedagogies, the technological affordances, as well as the eight
scientific practices, to support authentic scientific inquiry.
For Policy
There has been a progressive trend and strong commitment to the integration of
technology in all levels of the educational system (Pringle et al., 2015; Wright, 2010). The
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

229

National Education Technology Plan, developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office
of Educational Technology, calls for educators to leverage technology-based learning in order to
ensure that students are provided with authentic, engaging, and meaningful learning experiences
(National Educational Technology Plan, 2010). In this study, each of the teacher participants and
their corresponding students had in their possession and used some form of technology over the
course of the classroom observations. Although both science classes belonged in schools with a
1:1 technology initiative (every student was given a device for individualized learning), the
affordances provided by the technologies they “used” demonstrated features of simple inquiry
(Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), not authentic scientific inquiry. Furthermore, based on the research in
this study, it was evident that a 1:1 technology classroom environment was not adequate to
engage students in complex thinking or development of scientific knowledge. One implication
for policy is that the role of implementing 1:1 technology initiatives in science classrooms, for
the purpose of supporting student inquiry in science, is not fully understood. For educators and
policymakers who intend to invest in 1:1 technology initiatives as a means for improving
educational outcomes, Bebell and O’Dwyer (2010) argue that there is little empirical evidence
upon which to base decisions when doing so. They (2010) found that participation in 1:1
technology programs was “associated with increased student and teacher technology use,
increased student engagement and interest level, and modest increases in student achievement”
(p. 4). In a recent research, Pringle et al. (2015) provide a similar trend relating technology use.
Their (2015) research suggests that although their findings demonstrated an increase in
technology-related practices, “very little improvements occurred with fostering inquiry-based
science and effective science-specific pedagogy” (p. 648). This suggests that the role of
technology use to support inquiry in science, as well as to increase the student achievement in
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

230

general, remains elusive. The recommendation is, therefore, that educational leaders and
policymakers must use the outcomes and findings of empirical investigations as basis when
making considerable investments in educational technologies. The assumption that increased
access and use of technology would relate to improved teaching and learning warrants further
investigation.
For Future Research
This study revealed areas in which further research is warranted. There is an implication
for further research to understand how teachers use technology to support authentic scientific
inquiry. For example, the two case study teachers in this research used technology to support
simple inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), not authentic scientific inquiry. Although both
teachers used technology to engage students in scientific processes and simple inquiry, neither
teacher’s practices supported complex thinking nor student questioning, during inquiry process.
To advance our knowledge in understanding how technology-based teaching practices support
complex thinking and student questioning during inquiry process, I raise two questions that
emerged from this study: What technology-based teaching practices will teachers most likely
employ to support complex thinking during inquiry process? What technology-based teaching
practices will teachers use to foster student questioning during inquiry process? The answers to
these questions are warranted in order to identify the technology-based teaching practices that
support complex thinking and student questioning during inquiry process, thus, furthering our
understanding of the role of technology in scientific inquiry. It may be possible to answer these
questions through examination of the teaching practices enacted by science teachers who have
robust knowledge encompassing inquiry-based pedagogies, the technological affordances, as
well as the eight scientific practices.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

231

Another implication for further research relates to the idea that new teachers, which
include preservice teachers and teachers in their five years of practice (Davis et al., 2006), may
not have the knowledge encompassing inquiry-based pedagogies, the technological affordances,
as well as the eight scientific practices, to support authentic scientific inquiry. Davis et al. (2006)
argue:
While it is important to support all teachers in enacting reforms, it may be especially
critical to support new teachers…new teachers are crucial for enacting and spreading
reforms…supporting them in doing so effectively would help to make their early years of
teaching more effective, thus improving the instruction that students receive. (p. 608)
While Davis et al. (2006) emphasize the rationale for supporting new teachers, Gerard et al.
(2011) identify areas to further explore relating preservice programs. For instance, Gerard et al.
(2011) assert that “few preservice programs prepare teachers to use technology-enhanced
materials to enhance inquiry learning” (p. 409). The recommendation, therefore, is that teacher
education programs must provide opportunities for new teachers to learn the types of knowledge
necessary to support authentic scientific inquiry. Moving forward, all teachers, regardless of their
years of service, therefore, must actively and continuously learn and apply the types of
knowledge recommended in this study to support students in authentic scientific inquiry.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

232

References
Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A., & Silva, P. (2007). Inquiry in the classroom: challenges and
possibilities. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Ainsworth, L. (2010). Rigorous curriculum design: How to create curricular units of study that
align standards, instruction, and assessment. Englewood, CO: The Leadership and
Learning Center.
Akerson, V. L., Townsend, J. S., Donnelly, L. A., Hanson, D. L., Tira, P., & White, O. (2009).
Scientific modeling for inquiring teachers network (SMIT'N): The influence on
elementary teachers' views of nature of science, inquiry, and modeling. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 20, 21-40.
Alexander, R.J. (2005). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. York, England:
Dialogos.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for science literacy:
Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 31(4), 349-369. doi:10.1007/BF00369153
Australian Science Teachers Association. (2002). National professional standards for highly
accomplished teachers of science. Canberra, Australian Science Teachers Association.
Aydeniz, M. (2007). Understanding the challenges of implementing assessment reform in
science classrooms: a case study of science teachers’ conceptions and practices of
assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

233

Aydeniz, M., Baksa, K., & Skinner, J. (2011). Understanding the impact of an apprenticeship-
based scientific research program on high school students’ understanding of scientific
inquiry. Journal of Science Education Technology, 20, 403-421.
Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bajcsy, R. (2002). Technology and learning. In Visions 2020: Transforming education and
training through advanced technologies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce.
Bakia, M., Yang, E., & Mitchell, K. (2008). National educational technology trends study local
level data summary. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development, U.S. Department of Education.
Ball, D. L., Hoover, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it
special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum:
Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454-467.
Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Duffy, T. (1998). Grounded constructions and how technology can
help. Technology Trends, 43(2), 15-23.
Barron, A., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on
technology in K-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the national
technology standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 489-507.
Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas‐about‐science”:
Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655-682.
Beals, D. E. (1998). Reappropriating schema: Conceptions of development from Barlett and
Bakhtin. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(1), 3-24.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

234

Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L.M. (2010). Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing
Settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1).
Becker, H. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban
right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51).
Belkin International, Inc. (2012). Save Energy through Discovery. In Conserve. Retrieved
August 19, 2017, from https://www.belkin.com/conserve/insight/.
Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying Inquiry Instruction: Assessing the
Inquiry Level of Classroom Activities. Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
Bennett, D., Culp, K. M., Honey, M., Tally, B., & Spielvogel, B. (2000). It all depends:
Strategies for designing technologies for educational change. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Learning Technology, Philadelphia, PA.
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, D. E. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry:
making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for
teachers. Science Education, 93(2): 322-360.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2000). Creating usable
innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science
in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149-164.
Bodner, G. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical
Education, 63(10), 873-878.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1.Washington, D.C.: The George Washington
University, School of Education and Human Development.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

235

Bredeson, P. (2000). The school principal’s role in teacher professional development. Journal of
In-Service Education, 26(2), 385-401.
Campbell, L., & Campbell, B. (2009). Mindful learning: 101 proven strategies for student and
teacher success (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Carin, A. A., Bass, J. E., & Contant, T. L. (2005). Methods for teaching science as inquiry.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Center for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence. (2004). Research evidence: Five
standards for effective pedagogy and student outcomes. In Technical Report No. G1
March, 2003 (rev., March, 2004). Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz.
Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design.
AACE Journal, 16(2), 137-159.
Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007).
Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practices.
International Journal of Science Education. 29(2), 195-213.
Chi, M. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating
learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73-105.
Chinn, C. A., & Hmelo, C. E. (2002). Authentic inquiry: introduction to the special section.
Science Education, 86, 171-174.
Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical
framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113-143.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

236

Cotton, K. (2000). The schooling practices that matter most. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory & Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory in
Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods
research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in
social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd edition).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson, C. (2013). The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument 2013 Edition. In The
Framework. Retrieved from http://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/.
Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of
Educational Research, 76, 607-651.
Doherty, R. W., Hilberg, R. S., Pinal, A., & Tharp, R. G. (2003). Five standards and student
achievement. National Association for Bilingual Education Journal of Research and
Practice, 1-24.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

237

Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported
inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
Eick, C. J. (2000). Inquiry, nature of science, and evolution: the need for a more complex
pedagogical content knowledge in science teaching. Electronic Journal of Science
Education, 4(3), 1-9.
Fusco, E. (2012). Effective questioning strategies in the classroom: A step-by-step approach to
engaged thinking and learning, K-8 (Vol. 17). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional development for
technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408-448.
Germann, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory
manuals: promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research Science and Technology,
33(5), 475-499.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation.
In Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3-17). Springer, Dordrecht.
Goodrum, D., Rennie, L. J., & Hackling, M. W. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and
learning of science in Australian schools: A research report. Canberra: Department of
Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in US public
schools: 2009. First Look. NCES 2010-040. National Center for Education Statistics.
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the
learning sciences (pp. 79-96). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gronlund, N. E. (2006). Assessment of student achievement (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

238

Guo, S., Tsai, C., Chang, F. M., & Huang, H. (2007). The study of questioning skills on teaching
improvement. The International Journal of Learning, 14(8), 141-145.
Hackling, M., & Prain, V. (2005). Primary connections (Vol. 2). Stage.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instruction and emotional support in the first-grade
classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development,
76(5), 949-967.
Hanson, D. M. (2005). Designing process‐oriented guided‐inquiry activities. In S. W. Beyerlein
& D. K. Apple (Eds.) Faculty guidebook–A comprehensive tool for improving faculty
performance (2nd ed.).
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York:
Routledge.
Haynie, G. (2006). Effective Biology Teaching: A Value-Added Instructional Improvement
Analysis Model. Research Watch. E&R Report No. 05.28. Wake County Public School
System.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundation for the
21
st
century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
Horizon Research, Inc. (1999). Local Systemic Change Classroom Observation Protocol.
Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com.
Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P.,…Tripp, L. (2008).
Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project
(The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and
Learning). Chicago, IL: MIT.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

239

Jarrett, D. (1997). Inquiry strategies for science and mathematics learning: It’s just good
teaching. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Johnson, C. C., Zhang, D., & Kahle, J. B. (2012). Effective science instruction: Impact on high-
stakes assessment performance. Research in Middle Level Education, 35(9), 1-14.
Johnson, C., Kahle, J., & Fargo, J. (2007). Effective teaching results in increased science
achievement for all students. Science Education, 91(3), 371-383.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into
Practice, 38(2), 67-73.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college
faculty instructional productivity. In ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. N.p.:
George Washington University.
Kim, M., Hannafin, M., & Bryan, L. (2007). Technology‐enhanced inquiry tools in science
education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science
Education, 91(6), 1010-1030.
Krajcik, J. (2001). Supporting science learning in context: project-based learning. In R. F. Tinker
& J. S. Krajcik (Eds.), Portable Technologies-Science Learning in Context. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. W., Bass, K.M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998).
Middle school students’ initial attempts at inquiry in project-based science classrooms.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4): 313-350.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

240

Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfield, P., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and
technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In Inquiring into inquiry
learning and teaching in science (pp. 283-315). Washington, DC: American Association
for the Advancement of Science.
Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317-334). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Kubicek, J. (2005). Inquiry-based learning, the nature of science, and computer technology: New
possibilities in science education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1).
Leinhardt, G., Weidman, C., & Hammond, K. M. (1987). Introduction and integration of
classroom routines by expert teachers. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(2), 135-76.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science
Education, 87(4), 517-538.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Lockhart, R. S., & Craik, F. L. M. (1990). Levels of processing: A retrospective commentary on
a framework for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44(1), 87-112.
Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Loucks-Horsley, S. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and
mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

241

Ludtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning
environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in
multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 120-131.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. T.
(2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban
systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063-1080.
Marzano, R. J., Norford, J. S., Paynter, D. E., Pickering, D. J., & Gaddy, B. B. (2001a). A
handbook for classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001b). Classroom instruction that works:
research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach [Kindle version]
(3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
McDonald, S., & Songer, N.B. (2008). Enacting classroom inquiry: Theorizing teachers’
conceptions of science teaching. Science Education, 92(6), 973-993.
McEwan, E. K. (2002). 10 traits of highly effective teachers: How to hire, coach, and mentor
successful teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

242

Morphew, V. N. (2012). A constructivist approach to the national educational technology
standards for teachers (First ed.). Eugene, Oregon: International Society for Technology
in Education.
Mouza, C., & Lavigne, N. (2013). Emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences
perspective. New York: Springer.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1987). What teachers should know and be
able to do. Detroit, MI: Author.
National Educational Technology Plan. (2010) Transforming American education: Learning
powered by technology. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
National Research Council. (1995). D. Ellmore, S. Olson, & P. Smith (Eds.) Reinventing
schools: The technology is now! Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. J.
Bransford, A. Brown, & R. Cocking (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2005). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

243

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New
K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Noeth, R. J., & Volkov, B. B. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of technology in our schools.
In ACT Policy Report (pp. 1-21). N.p.: ACT, Inc.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177-196.
Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. S. (1985). Learning in science: the implications of children’s
science (pp. 180-191). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Park, S., Jang, J., Chen, Y., & Jung, J. (2011). Is pedagogical content knowledge necessary for
reformed science teaching?: Evidence from an empirical study. Research in Science
Education, 41, 245-260.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., Jong, T. D., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E.
T.,…Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry
cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61.
Praise, Prompt, and Leave [Video file]. (2007). Fredric H. Jones & Associates. Retrieved July
23, 2017, from Academic Video Online: Premium.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

244

Pringle, R. M., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2015). Integrating science and technology:
Using technological pedagogical content knowledge as a framework to study the
practices of science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 648-
662.
Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology
at home and in their classrooms. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet &
American Life Project.
Reed, D. K. (2012). Clearly communicating the learning objective matters!. Middle School
Journal, 43(5), 16-24.
Resnick, L., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In
R. Sternberg and D. Preiss (Eds.), From Genes to Context: New Discoveries about
Learning from Educational Research and Their Applications (pp. 163-194). New York:
Springer.
Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students' prior
knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 45, 79-100.
Roth, K. J., & Garnier, H. E. (2007). What science teaching looks like: an international
perspective. Education Leadership, 64(4), 16-23.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Safer, N., & Fleischman, S. (2005). How student progress monitoring improves instruction.
Educational Leadership, 62(5), 81-83.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

245

Sawyer, K. (2006). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1-18). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Scanlon, E., Anastopoulou, S., Kerawalla, L., & Mulholland, P. (2011). How technology
resources can be used to represent personal inquiry and support students' understanding
of it across contexts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 516-529.
Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T., & Lee, Y. (2007). A meta-analysis of
national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the
United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436-1460.
Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. (2006). Scientists’ epistemological views of science. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco.
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education (pp. 50-79).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & Kam., R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban
classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39(2), 128-150.
Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & McDonald, S. (2003). Research towards expanded understanding of
inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87, 490-516.
Stratford, S. J. (1997). A review of computer-based model research in precollege science
classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(1), 3-23.
Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development [ASCD].
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

246

Stronge, J. H. (2007). Qualities of effective teachers (2nd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Stronge, J. H. (2015). Teacher effectiveness performance evaluation system handbook.
In Stronge Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System. Retrieved from
https://www.strongeandassociates.com/evaluating.html.
Supovitz, J. A. (2001). Translating teaching practice into improved student achievement. In S.
Fuhrman (Eds.), The capital to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp.
81–98). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tang, X., Levin, D.M., Coffey, J.E., & Hammer, D. (2008). The scientific method and scientific
inquiry: tensions in teaching and learning. In: Proceedings of the 8
th
international
conference on International conference for the learning sciences, 2, 374-381.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed:
Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Thomas, M., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a
world of constant change. Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tytler, R. (2002). School innovation in science (SIS): Focusing on teaching. Investigating, 18(3),
8-11.
Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science
teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: an examination of competing belief sets. Journal of
Research Science and Technology, 38(10), 1065-1088.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

247

Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2005). Quality questioning: Research-based practice to engage
every learner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Wee, B., Fast, J., Shepardson, D., Harbor, J., & Boone, W. (2004). Students’ perceptions of
environmental-based inquiry experiences. School Science and Mathematics, 104(3), 112-
118.
Weiss, I. R., & Miller, B. (2006). Deepening teacher content knowledge for teaching: A review
of the evidence. Retrieved from
http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/weissmiller.pdf?media_000000006130.pdf.
Williams, P. J., Nguyen, N., & Mangan, J. (2017). Using technology to support science inquiry
learning. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 7(1), 26-57.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: model-
based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science
Education, 92(5), 941-967.
Wood, N. B., Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Viewing the school environment
through multiple lenses: In search of school-level variables tied to student achievement.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 237-254.
Wright, N. (2010). e-Learning and implications for New Zealand schools: A literature review.
Ministry of Education.
Wyatt, T. R. (2016). Contextualization strategies for implementation of the common core. Issues
in Teacher Education, 25(2), 117-132.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

248

Zahorik, J., Halbach, A., Ehrle, K., & Molnar, A. (2003). Teaching practices for smaller classes.
Educational Leadership, 61(1), 75-77.

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

249

Appendix A
Pre-observation Interview Protocol

1
PRE-OBSERVATION INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

A MULTI-CASE STUDY OF TEACHING PRACTICES AND HOW TEACHERS USE TECHNOLOGY
TO SUPPORT INQUIRY IN SCIENCE

Principal Investigator: Nel C. Venzon, Jr.
Faculty Advisor: Julie Slayton, J.D., Ph.D.

Date:_______________________________________ Start Time:______________________ End Time: _______________________

Interviewee Name: ____________________________________________ School :_________________________________________

Job Title:____________________________________Phone: _____________________Email: _______________________________

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. As you know, I am interested in understanding how you teach science at your
school. I am going to be asking you questions about your teaching practices and how you use resources, including technology, in your
teaching.

Before we begin the interview, I would like to remind you that participating in this study is voluntary and your responses are
completely confidential.

Would you mind if I taped the interview? It will help me stay focused on our conversation and it will ensure I have an accurate record
of what we discussed. At any point during the interview, if you would like me to turn off the recorder, please tell me to do so.

Do you have any questions about the study before we begin?

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

250

2
BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS

Interview Question Probing Question
1. How long have you been involved in the teaching
profession?
1. How long have you been teaching middle/high school
science?

2. How long have you been teaching at this school?
2. What was your teaching experience prior to teaching at
this school?

3. What are the characteristics of this school that you find
exciting?

4. Tell me several things that your school does that involve
science (e.g. science fair, school-community partnership,
field trips, etc.).

5. What is the nature of the classes you teach? 1. What courses do you teach?

2. What grade levels do you teach?

3. Are the classes you are teaching grouped by skill level
(e.g. AP, Pre-AP, Honors, Gifted & Talented, etc.)?

4. If so, could you tell me how students are assigned to these
classes?
6. Aside from teaching science, what are your other
academic or extra-curricular activity commitments (e.g.
Department Head, Science Fair coordinator, Robotics
Club advisor, etc.)?
1. How does your commitment to these activities relate to
your teaching?

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

251

3
LESSON PLANNING

Construct Interview Prompt Probing Question
Instructional Delivery
manipulation and instructional technology
strategies that provide students with the
time, space, and resources to support
productive learning of science with
opportunities to interpret and construct
multimodal representations

1. Let’s focus our conversation on
your most recent lesson. Walk me
through how you planned this
particular lesson.
During lesson planning…

1. What were the learning objectives
of the lesson?

2. What kind of materials and
resources, including technology,
did you use to plan for this lesson?

3. Describe to me how you used these
materials and resources during your
lesson planning.
Collaboration
teachers and students cooperating and
producing together in the development of
scientific knowledge using technology to
facilitate interaction and exchange of ideas
in a classroom
When planning for instruction…

1. For this particular lesson, did you
have an approach to where students
sat in your classroom? If you did,
what factors did you consider (e.g.
gender, academic abilities, social
interaction tendencies, etc.)?

2. How were your students grouped in
your class (e.g. pairs, triads, in
groups of four, etc.)?
Contextualized Learning
classroom science is linked with the
broader community to make meaning of
and experience a curriculum that is
When planning for this lesson…

1. What kind of student knowledge
was necessary for this particular
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

252

4
relevant to students’ lives and interests
using technology that helps students
experience the world beyond their own
context.
lesson?

2. How did student previous
knowledge play a role in your
lesson planning?
Inquiry
guidance and facilitation of complex
thinking using technology to encourage
students to actively engage with
questioning, hypothesis, ideas, evidence,
and scientific processes
When planning for this lesson…

1. What kind of scientific processes
did you include in the lesson?

2. How did you design the lesson
around these scientific processes?

3. What kind of scientific concepts
did you include in the planning?

4. How did you design the lesson
around these scientific concepts?

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

253

5
LESSON IMPLEMENTATION

Construct Interview Prompt Probing Question
Instructional Delivery
manipulation and instructional technology
strategies that provide students with the
time, space, and resources to support
productive learning of science with
opportunities to interpret and construct
multimodal representations

1. Focusing on the same lesson, walk
me through how you implemented
the lesson.
When teaching this lesson…

1. How did you use the time, space,
resources including technology,
routines, and procedures to achieve
the learning goals of this lesson?

2. How did the resources you used
facilitate student participation and
interactions?

3. How did the students use these
resources?

4. How was students’ learning of
content supported through the use
of instructional tools?

5. Describe to me examples of student
work produced from this lesson.
Collaboration
teachers and students cooperating and
producing together in the development of
scientific knowledge using technology to
facilitate interaction and exchange of ideas
in a classroom
During this lesson…

1. How were your students grouped in
your class (e.g. pairs, triads, in
groups of four, etc.)?

2. How did your students interact with
each other?
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

254

6

3. What was your role and what did
you do?

4. Describe to me your interaction
with your students.

5. What resources, including
technology, were used to support
student interactions and exchange
of ideas?

6. Describe to me how these resources
shaped the interaction of the
students during the lesson.

7. How did you and your students use
technology to support learning
through peer interactions?
Contextualized Learning
classroom science is linked with the
broader community to make meaning of
and experience a curriculum that is
relevant to students’ lives and interests
using technology that helps students
experience the world beyond their own
context.

For this particular lesson…

1. What teaching strategies did you
use to ensure students learned the
objectives of the lesson?

2. How did you use student previous
knowledge to learn the objectives
of the lesson?

3. What resources, including
technology, did you use to connect
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

255

7
students’ prior knowledge and the
content of this lesson?

4. How, if any, did you make the
lesson interesting and relevant to
your students’ lives?
Inquiry
guidance and facilitation of complex
thinking using technology to encourage
students to actively engage with
questioning, hypothesis, ideas, evidence,
and scientific processes
During the implementation of this
particular lesson…

1. Describe to me how you used
resources, including technology, to
guide and facilitate students with
the questioning.

2. How did you support students in
completing the tasks (e.g.
hypothesizing, evidence gathering,
etc.) for this lesson?

3. How did you challenge your
students to promote inquiry using a
variety of structured tasks (e.g.
analyzing a system, solving a
problem, conducting a historical
investigation, inventing and
innovating, performing an
experimental inquiry, making a
decision, etc.)?

4. What did you do to encourage
students to share their thinking with
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

256

8
one another, to build on their peer’s
ideas, and to assess their
understanding of their peer’s ideas?

5. How did the content of the lesson
influence the cognitive demand
such as thinking and reasoning of
your students?

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

257

9
ASSESSMENT OF LESSON

Construct Interview Prompt Probing Question
Instructional Delivery
manipulation and instructional technology
strategies that provide students with the
time, space, and resources to support
productive learning of science with
opportunities to interpret and construct
multimodal representations

1. With the same lesson in mind, walk
me through the outcome of the
lesson.
In this lesson…

1. Describe to me examples of
manipulation and instructional
strategies, if any, that worked?

2. How did the instructional strategies
shape the learning objectives?
Collaboration
teachers and students cooperating and
producing together in the development of
scientific knowledge using technology to
facilitate interaction and exchange of ideas
in a classroom
In this lesson…

1. How did the student grouping (or
individual tasks) affect the outcome
of the lesson?

2. How did the student interactions in
your class shape the learning
objectives?

3. Could you show me an example of
student work that resulted from this
lesson?
Contextualized Learning
classroom science is linked with the
broader community to make meaning of
and experience a curriculum that is
relevant to students’ lives and interests
using technology that helps students
experience the world beyond their own
In this lesson…

1. In what ways did students
demonstrate their understanding of
the lesson?

2. Describe to me how you gathered
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

258

10
context.

information about student learning.

3. How did you elaborate or expand
what students learned from this
lesson?

4. How did you address, if any, the
misconceptions your students had
in this activity?
Inquiry
guidance and facilitation of complex
thinking using technology to encourage
students to actively engage with
questioning, hypothesis, ideas, evidence,
and scientific processes
In this lesson…

1. How did you gauge student
mastery of the scientific processes
involved in the lesson?

2. How did you gauge student
understanding of the scientific
concepts presented in the lesson?

3. What kind of feedback, if any, did
you provide your students while
performing different tasks (e.g.
questioning, hypothesizing,
evidence gathering)?

Thank you for your time. If I have any additional questions or need clarification, how and when is it best to contact you?

INTERVIEW ENDS HERE
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

259

Appendix B
Post-observation Interview Protocol

1
POST-OBSERVATION INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
(THE QUESTIONS WILL BE MODIFIED BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS CONDUCTED)

A MULTI-CASE STUDY OF TEACHING PRACTICES AND HOW TEACHERS USE TECHNOLOGY
TO SUPPORT INQUIRY IN SCIENCE

Principal Investigator: Nel C. Venzon, Jr.
Faculty Advisor: Julie Slayton, J.D., Ph.D.

Date:_______________________________________ Start Time:______________________ End Time: _______________________

Interviewee Name: ____________________________________________ School :_________________________________________

Job Title:____________________________________Phone: _____________________Email: _______________________________

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. As you know, I am interested in understanding how you teach science at your
school. I am going to be asking you questions about your teaching practices and how you use resources, including technology, in your
teaching.

In this interview, I will be asking you questions about the lesson that you taught recently, particularly the lesson that I observed in
your classroom.

Would you mind if I taped the interview? It will help me stay focused on our conversation and it will ensure I have an accurate record
of what we discussed. At any point during the interview, if you would like me to turn off the recorder, please tell me to do so.

Do you have any questions about the study before we begin?
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

260

2
LESSON PLANNING

Construct Interview Prompt Probing Question
Instructional Delivery
manipulation and instructional technology
strategies that provide students with the
time, space, and resources to support
productive learning of science with
opportunities to interpret and construct
multimodal representations

1. Let’s focus our conversation on the
lesson that I have observed in your
classroom. Walk me through how
you planned this particular lesson.
During lesson planning…

1. What were the learning objectives
of the lesson?

2. What kind of materials and
resources, including technology,
did you use to plan for this lesson?

3. Describe to me how you used these
materials and resources during your
lesson planning.
Collaboration
teachers and students cooperating and
producing together in the development of
scientific knowledge using technology to
facilitate interaction and exchange of ideas
in a classroom
When planning for instruction…

1. For this particular lesson, did you
have an approach to where students
sat in your classroom? If you did,
what factors did you consider (e.g.
gender, academic abilities, social
interaction tendencies, etc.)?

2. How were your students grouped in
your class (e.g. pairs, triads, in
groups of four, etc.)?
Contextualized Learning
classroom science is linked with the
broader community to make meaning of
and experience a curriculum that is
When planning for this lesson…

1. What kind of student knowledge
was necessary for this particular
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

261

3
relevant to students’ lives and interests
using technology that helps students
experience the world beyond their own
context.
lesson?

2. How did student previous
knowledge play a role in your
lesson planning?
Inquiry
guidance and facilitation of complex
thinking using technology to encourage
students to actively engage with
questioning, hypothesis, ideas, evidence,
and scientific processes
When planning for this lesson…

1. What kind of scientific processes
did you include in the lesson?

2. How did you design the lesson
around these scientific processes?

3. What kind of scientific concepts
did you include in the planning?

4. How did you design the lesson
around these scientific concepts?

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

262

4
LESSON IMPLEMENTATION

Construct Interview Prompt Probing Question
Instructional Delivery
manipulation and instructional technology
strategies that provide students with the
time, space, and resources to support
productive learning of science with
opportunities to interpret and construct
multimodal representations

1. Focusing on the same lesson, walk
me through how you implemented
the lesson.
When teaching this lesson…

1. How did you use the time, space,
resources including technology,
routines, and procedures to achieve
the learning goals of this lesson?

2. How did the resources you used
facilitate student participation and
interactions?

3. How did the students use these
resources?

4. How was students’ learning of
content supported through the use
of instructional tools?

5. Describe to me examples of student
work produced from this lesson.
Collaboration
teachers and students cooperating and
producing together in the development of
scientific knowledge using technology to
facilitate interaction and exchange of ideas
in a classroom
During this lesson…

1. How were your students grouped in
your class (e.g. pairs, triads, in
groups of four, etc.)?

2. How did your students interact with
each other?
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

263

5

3. What was your role and what did
you do?

4. Describe to me your interaction
with your students.

5. What resources, including
technology, were used to support
student interactions and exchange
of ideas?

6. Describe to me how these resources
shaped the interaction of the
students during the lesson.

7. How did you and your students use
technology to support learning
through peer interactions?
Contextualized Learning
classroom science is linked with the
broader community to make meaning of
and experience a curriculum that is
relevant to students’ lives and interests
using technology that helps students
experience the world beyond their own
context.

For this particular lesson…

1. What teaching strategies did you
use to ensure students learned the
objectives of the lesson?

2. How did you use student previous
knowledge to learn the objectives
of the lesson?

3. What resources, including
technology, did you use to connect
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

264

6
students’ prior knowledge and the
content of this lesson?

4. How, if any, did you make the
lesson interesting and relevant to
your students’ lives?
Inquiry
guidance and facilitation of complex
thinking using technology to encourage
students to actively engage with
questioning, hypothesis, ideas, evidence,
and scientific processes
During the implementation of this
particular lesson…

1. Describe to me how you used
resources, including technology, to
guide and facilitate students with
the questioning.

2. How did you support students in
completing the tasks (e.g.
hypothesizing, evidence gathering,
etc.) for this lesson?

3. How did you challenge your
students to promote inquiry using a
variety of structured tasks (e.g.
analyzing a system, solving a
problem, conducting a historical
investigation, inventing and
innovating, performing an
experimental inquiry, making a
decision, etc.)?

4. What did you do to encourage
students to share their thinking with
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

265

7
one another, to build on their peer’s
ideas, and to assess their
understanding of their peer’s ideas?

5. How did the content of the lesson
influence the cognitive demand
such as thinking and reasoning of
your students?

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

266

8
ASSESSMENT OF LESSON

Construct Interview Prompt Probing Question
Instructional Delivery
manipulation and instructional technology
strategies that provide students with the
time, space, and resources to support
productive learning of science with
opportunities to interpret and construct
multimodal representations

1. With the same lesson in mind, walk
me through the outcome of the
lesson.
In this lesson…

1. Describe to me examples of
manipulation and instructional
strategies, if any, that worked?

2. How did the instructional strategies
shape the learning objectives?
Collaboration
teachers and students cooperating and
producing together in the development of
scientific knowledge using technology to
facilitate interaction and exchange of ideas
in a classroom
In this lesson…

1. How did the student grouping (or
individual tasks) affect the outcome
of the lesson?

2. How did the student interactions in
your class shape the learning
objectives?

3. Could you show me an example of
student work that resulted from this
lesson?
Contextualized Learning
classroom science is linked with the
broader community to make meaning of
and experience a curriculum that is
relevant to students’ lives and interests
using technology that helps students
experience the world beyond their own
In this lesson…

1. In what ways did students
demonstrate their understanding of
the lesson?

2. Describe to me how you gathered
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

267

9
context.

information about student learning.

3. How did you elaborate or expand
what students learned from this
lesson?

4. How did you address, if any, the
misconceptions your students had
in this activity?
Inquiry
guidance and facilitation of complex
thinking using technology to encourage
students to actively engage with
questioning, hypothesis, ideas, evidence,
and scientific processes
In this lesson…

1. How did you gauge student
mastery of the scientific processes
involved in the lesson?

2. How did you gauge student
understanding of the scientific
concepts presented in the lesson?

3. What kind of feedback, if any, did
you provide your students while
performing different tasks (e.g.
questioning, hypothesizing,
evidence gathering)?

Thank you for your time. If I have any additional questions or need clarification, how and when is it best to contact you?

INTERVIEW ENDS HERE
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

268

Appendix C
Classroom Observation Protocol

A MULTI-CASE STUDY OF TEACHING PRACTICES AND HOW TEACHERS USE TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPORT INQUIRY IN SCIENCE
Principal Investigator: Nel C. Venzon, Jr.
Faculty Advisor: Julie Slayton, J.D., Ph.D.
1
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

Date:_______________________________________ Start Time:______________________ End Time: _______________________

Teacher: ____________________________________________ School & Location:________________________________________

Classroom Description and Notes:

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

269

Appendix D
Student Work Sample of the “Do’s and Don’ts” “T” Table

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

270

Appendix E
Information for the Chemical Reaction Project

Chemical Reaction Project
DUE: Tuesday, May 10 & Wednesday May 11

Chemical reactions are occurring constantly all around you. In this project, you and your
partner will research one of several very important chemical reactions and present your findings to the
class.
1. Combustion of methane gas (and formation of greenhouse gases)
2. Combustion of octane by cars (and formation of greenhouse gases)
3. Formation of Acid Rain (formation of carbonic acid)
4. Acidification of the oceans (decomposition of carbonic acid)
5. Smog
6. Fuel Cells (electrolysis of water)
7. Photosynthesis
8. Aerobic Cellular Respiration
9. Anaerobic Respiration
10. CFC’s Ozone depletion
11. Biological formation of Calcium Carbonate
12. Acid neutralization with Antacid tablets

In a 4-7 minute oral presentation with visual (powerpoint, prezi, etc.)
• Explain your topic and its relevance in the real world (Why do we need to know about it?)
• Present the balanced chemical reaction
• Describe each of the reactants and products
§ Use chemical names and common names for each component of the reaction in
your presentation and use scientific terms learned within this unit
• Present a 3D model of your main molecule
• Le Chatelier’s Principle (varies for each topic – refer to handout)

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

271

1. Combustion of methane
Reaction: CH
4
+ O
2
à CO
2
+ H
2
O
• Explain the major sources of carbon dioxide pollution from methane combustion
• Le Chatelier’s Principle: How can we decrease the formation of CO
2
(dangerous green
house gas) – include a real life factor the people of Earth could change

2. Combustion of octane
Reaction: C
8
H
18
+ O
2
à CO
2
+ H
2
O
• Explain how the combustion of octane contributes to carbon dioxide pollution, present real
data (you may use the internet) to address the importance of this issue
• Le Chatelier’s Principle: How can we decrease the formation of CO
2
(dangerous green
house gas) – include a real life factor the people of Earth could change

3. Formation of Acid Rain
Reaction: H
2
O + CO
2
à H
2
CO
3

• Describe a specific example (research the problem on the internet & pick location which is
being studied as the basis for your presentation)
• Le Chatelier’s Principle: How can we decrease the formation of acid rain?

4. Acidification of the Oceans
Reaction: H
2
CO
3
à CO
2
+ H
2
O
• Describe a specific example (research the problem on the internet & pick location which is
being studied as the basis for your presentation)
• Le Chatelier’s Principle: How can we decrease the amount of CO
2
being dissolved in our
oceans?

5. Smog
Reaction: NO + O
2
à NO
2
• Research the problem on the internet & pick a major city to use as basis of your
presentation. Use data from the internet in your explanation of the problem
• Le Chatelier’s Principle: How can we decrease production of NO
2
?

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

272

6. Combustion of hydrogen / Electrolysis of water
Reaction: H
2
+ O
2
à H
2
O + energy
• Explain the reaction as it relates to fuel cells in the hydrogen powered vehicles
• Le Chatelier’s Principle: Explain how fuel cell cars sustain energy production

7. Photosynthesis
Reaction: CO
2
+ H
2
Oà O
2
+ C
6
H
12
O
6

• Explain the importance of the photosynthesis reaction in Earth’s natural energy cycle
• Le Chatelier’s Principle: How can you increase glucose production in photosynthesis?

8. Aerobic Cellular Respiration
Reaction: C
6
H
12
O
6
+ O
2
à CO
2
+ H
2
O + energy (36 ATP)
• Explain the process & purpose of cellular respiration
• Le Chatelier’s Principle: How can you increase energy production in cellular respiration?

9. Anaerobic Respiration of Yeast
Reaction: C
6
H
12
O
6
à C
2
H
5
OH + CO
2
+ energy (ATP)
• Explain the real life application of Fermentation
• Le Chatelier’s Principle: Explain how the production of ethanol is maintained in this reaction

10. CFC’s Ozone Depletion
Reaction: Cl + O
3
à ClO + O
2

• What are CFC’s?
• What is Ozone?
• Describe the global problem
• Le Chatelier’s Principle: How can we stop ozone depletion

11. Natural formation of Calcium Carbonate
Reaction: Ca
2+
+ CO
3
2-
à CaCO
3

• Natural presence of calcium carbonate in bird/reptile egg shells, crustaceans
• Underground rock formations
• Formation of limestone & marble
• Le Chatelier’s Principle: Where do birds get their Calcium from to produce CaCO
3
?
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

273

12. Acid Neutralization with Antacid Tablets
Reaction: HCl + CaCO
3
à CaCl
2
+ H
2
O + CO
2

• Balance the chemical reaction
• Describe the science behind heartburn
• Le Chatelier’s Principle: How do TUMS reduce acid in the stomach?

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

274

Appendix F
Energy Balance Recording Sheet

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

275

Appendix G
Photo of a 3-D Model of the Earth’s Energy Budget Activity

TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

276

Appendix H
Information for the Earth’s Energy Budget Activity

Earth’s(Energy(Budget(Ac2vity(
Text(and(images(excerpted(and(adapted(from:((
NASA(Earth(Observatory(Feature(ar2cle(“Energy(Balance”(
hDp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page1.php((
Na2onal(Weather(Service((JetStream((
hDp://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/energy.htm(
Instruc2ons:(((
In(the(following(ac2vity(you(will(use(pennies,(or(other(stackable(objects,(to(illustrate(
the(text(and(graphics(describing(Earth’s(energy(budget.(You(will(read(each(sec2on(of(
text,(and(then(stack(objects(to(“account”(for(Earth’s(energy(budget.(((
You(will(need(100(pennies,(a(recording(sheet,(red,(blue,(and(orange(colored(pencils,(
and(a(pen(or(pencil(to(complete(this(ac2vity.(((
AQer(you(have(completed(your(accoun2ng,(you(can(check(your(work(with(your(
instructor.((
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

277

2(
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

278

Earth’s(Energy(Budget:(Introduc2on(
Earth’s(heat(engine(does(more(than(simply(move(heat(from(one(part(of(the(surface(
to(another;(it(also(moves(heat(from(the(Earth’s(surface(and(lower(atmosphere(back(
to(space.(This(flow(of(incoming(and(outgoing(energy(is(Earth’s(energy(budget.(For(
Earth’s(temperature(to(be(stable(over(long(periods(of(2me,(incoming(energy(and(
outgoing(energy(have(to(be(equal.(In(other(words,(the(energy(budget(at(the(top(of(
the(atmosphere(must(balance.(This(means(that(for(every(100(units(of(energy(into(
the(system(there(must(be(100(units(of(energy(out(of(the(system.(This(state(of(
balance(is(called(global(radia2ve(equilibrium.(
To(understand(how(the(Earth’s(climate(system(balances(the(energy(budget,(we(have(
to(consider(processes(occurring(at(three(levels:(the(surface(of(the(Earth,(where(most(
solar(hea2ng(takes(place;(the(top(edge(of(Earth’s(atmosphere,(where(sunlight(enters(
the(system;(and(the(atmosphere(in(between.(At(each(level,(the(amount(of(incoming(
and(outgoing(energy,(or(net(flux,(must(be(equal.(((
Earth’s(energy(balance(is(complex,(and(includes(many(concurrent(processes.((
In(this(ac2vity,(you(will(break(these(processes(into(three(steps(in(order(to(simplify(
the(processes(and(understand(how(it(all(fits(together.((
3(
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

279

Overview(of(Energy(Pathways(
Begin(this(ac2vity(by(gaining(an(overview(of(the(energy(pathways.(Using(the(graphic(shown(
below,(iden2fy(the(incoming(solar(radia2on.(On(your(printed(version(of(the(graphic,(color(
the(incoming(radia2on(blue.((Next,(color(the(arrows(represen2ng(outgoing(radia2on(red,(
and(the(latent(and(sensible(heat(arrows(orange.(((
4(
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

280

5(
(Solar(energy(is(constantly(moving(through(space(and(bathing(our(planet(and(its(atmosphere.(
The(energy(that(arrives(at(the(top(of(the(atmosphere(is(either(reflected(or(absorbed.((
(About(30(percent(of(the(solar(energy(that(arrives(at(the(top(of(the(atmosphere(is(reflected(
back(to(space(by(clouds,(atmospheric(par2cles,(or(bright(ground(surfaces(like(sea(ice(and(snow.(
This(energy(plays(no(role(in(Earth’s(climate(system.((
(Meanwhile,(about(23(percent(of(incoming(solar(energy(is(absorbed(in(the(atmosphere(by(
water(vapor,(dust,(and(ozone,(and(47(percent(passes(through(the(atmosphere(and(is(absorbed(
by(Earth’s(surface.(Thus,(about(70(percent(of(the(total(incoming(solar(energy(is(absorbed(by(
the(Earth(system.(
Part(1:(Incoming(Solar(Radia2on(
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

281

Acquire(100(objects((i.e.,(pennies)(to(represent(the(energy(units.(These(pennies(represent(all(of(
the(solar(energy(reaching(the(top(of(the(atmosphere(from(the(sun,(or(100%.(Start(at(the(upperc
leQ(of(the(energy(balance(diagram.(Fill(in(the(box(next(to(the(sun(with(the(number(100.((
Then,(stack(the(pennies(on(the(diagram(according(to(what(happens(to(each(unit(of(energy(as(it(
travels(through(the(atmosphere(on(its(way(to(Earth's(surface.(
Separate(the(pennies(into(five(columns(and(place(them(on(the(paper(as(follows:((
(((( (23(units(–(reflected(by(the(clouds(and(atmosphere(
(((( (7(units(–(reflected(by(the(Earth’s(surface(
(((( (19(units(–(absorbed(by(the(atmosphere((ozone,(aerosols,(dust)(
(4(units(–(absorbed(by(clouds(
((( (47(units(–(absorbed(by(the(Earth(surfaces((primarily(ocean)(
Next,(add(up(and(record(the(total(units(in(your(student(notebook.(
Total(reflected(by(clouds,(atmosphere,(and(surface:(_______(
Total(absorbed(by(atmosphere(and(clouds:(______((
Total(absorbed(by(land(surface:((_____((
Part(1((con2nued)(
6(
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

282

In(Part(1(you(saw(that(about(30(percent(of(incoming(sunlight(is(reflected(back(to(space(by(par2cles(in(
the(atmosphere(or(bright(ground(surfaces,(which(leaves(about(70(percent(to(be(absorbed(by(the(
atmosphere((23(percent)(and(Earth’s(surface((47(percent)(including(the(ocean.(For(the(energy(budget(
at(Earth’s(surface(to(balance,(processes(on(the(surface(must(transfer(and(transform(the(47(percent(of(
incoming(solar(energy(that(the(ocean(and(land(surfaces(absorbed(back(into(the(atmosphere(and(
eventually(space.(Energy(leaves(the(surface(through(three(key(processes:(evapora2on,(convec2on,(
and(emission(of(thermal(infrared((IR)(energy.(
About(24(percent(of(incoming(solar(energy(leaves(the(surface(through(evapora2on(and(sublima2on.(
Liquid(water(molecules(absorb(incoming(solar(energy,(and(they(change(phase(from(liquid(to(gas.(The(
heat(energy(that(it(took(to(evaporate(the(water(is(latent((or(hidden)(in(the(random(mo2ons(of(the(
water(vapor(molecules(as(they(spread(through(the(atmosphere.(When(the(water(vapor(molecules(
condense(back(into(clouds,(the(latent(heat(is(released(to(the(surrounding(atmosphere.(Evapora2on(
from(tropical(oceans(and(the(subsequent(release(of(latent(heat(are(the(primary(drivers(of(the(
atmospheric(heat(engine.(
7(
Part(2:(Surface(Energy(Budget(
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

283

Part(2((con2nued)(
An(addi2onal(5(percent(of(incoming(solar(energy(leaves(the(surface(through(convec2on.(Air(in(
direct(contact(with(the(suncwarmed(ground(becomes(warm(and(buoyant.(In(general,(the(
atmosphere(is(warmer(near(the(surface(and(colder(at(higher(al2tudes,(and(under(these(
condi2ons,(warm(air(rises,(shuDling(heat(away(from(the(surface.((
Finally,(a(net(of(about(18(percent(of(incoming(solar(energy(leaves(the(surface(as(thermal(infrared(
energy((heat)(radiated(by(atoms(and(molecules(on(the(surface.(This(net(upward(emission(results(
from(two(large(but(opposing(fluxes:(heat(flowing(upward(from(the(Earth’s(surface(to(the(
atmosphere((116%)(and(heat(flowing(downward(from(the(atmosphere(to(the(ground((98%).(
8(
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

284

The(energy,(which(had(been(absorbed(by(the(surface(of(the(Earth,(will(now(be(transferred(
to(back(to(the(atmosphere(and(space(via(several(processes.((
To(represent(these(processes,(move(the(47(pennies(from(the(radia2on(absorbed(by(the(
surface(to(four(new(loca2ons(on(the(energy(balance(diagram(as(follows.(
(((( (24(–(Latent(heat:(energy(that(is(used(in(evapora2on,(transpira2on,(and(condensa2on(
(((( (5(–((Sensible(heat:(energy(that(becomes(convec2on(
(((( (12(–(EmiDed(from(Earth(directly(back(to(space(
(6(–(Net(radia2on(amount(absorbed(by(atmosphere(((
Note:(this(is(the(longcwave(energy(that(is(emiDed(by(Earth(to(the(atmosphere(
(116),(minus(the(energy(that(is(directly(transferred(to(space((12)(combined(with(
that(which(recradiated(back(to(Earth(by(the(atmosphere((98).((
[116c(12+98)]=(6((
Part(2((con2nued)(
9(
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

285

Part(3:(The(Atmosphere’s(Energy(Budget(
Just(as(the(incoming(and(outgoing(energy(at(the(Earth’s(surface(must(balance,(the(flow(of(energy(into(the(
atmosphere(must(be(balanced(by(an(equal(flow(of(energy(out(of(the(atmosphere(and(back(to(space.(Satellite(
measurements,(taken(at(the(top(of(the(atmosphere,(indicate(that(the(atmosphere(radiates(thermal(infrared(
energy(equivalent(to(58(percent(of(the(incoming(solar(energy.(If(the(atmosphere(is(radia2ng(this(much,(it(
must(be(absorbing(that(much.(Where(does(that(energy(come(from?(
Recall(from(Part(1,(that(clouds,(aerosols,(water(vapor,(and(ozone(directly(absorb(23(percent(of(incoming(solar(
energy.(In(Part(2,(you(saw(that(evapora2on(and(convec2on(transfer(another(24(and(5(percent(of(incoming(
solar(energy(from(the(surface(to(the(atmosphere,(which(then(moves(the(energy(back(to(space.(These(three(
processes(transfer(the(equivalent(of(52(percent(of(the(incoming(solar(energy(to(the(atmosphere.(If(total(
inflow(of(energy(must(match(the(outgoing(thermal(infrared(observed(at(the(top(of(the(atmosphere,(where(
does(the(remaining(frac2on((about(6(percent)(come(from?(The(remaining(energy(comes(from(the(por2on(
that(was(absorbed(by(the(atmosphere(and(not(recemiDed(back(to(Earth.(
10(
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

286

Move(the(energy(from(to(the(atmosphere(back(to(space,(through(the(following(steps.((
1. Collect(the(19(and(4(pennies,(which(were(absorbed(by(the(atmosphere(and(
clouds.(
2. Collect(the(24(and(5(pennies(that(were(transferred(to(the(atmosphere(via(latent(
and(sensible(heat.(
3. Collect(the(6(pennies(that(remained(in(the(atmosphere.((
4. Move(these(58(pennies(to(two(remaining(loca2ons(in(the(following(amounts((
a. 49(emiDed(by(the(atmosphere(
b. 9(emiDed(by(clouds(
Total(the(three(boxes(on(the(topcright(of(the(sheet.(
These(are(units(of(long(wave(energy(transferred(by(the(atmosphere(back(into(space.(
____(+(____(+(____(=(_____(
This(amount(of(energy,(when(combined(with(the(amount(of(energy(that(was(
reflected(in(Part(1,(should(equal(100(percent.((In(other(words,(all(the(incoming(solar(
energy(has(been(returned(to(space,(and(your(energy(budget(is(now(in(balance.((
11(
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

287

Earth’s(energy(balance(is(complex,(however(once(you(have(simplified(the(processes(
it(becomes(clear(how(the(parts(relate(to(the(whole.((Use(this(diagram(to(check(your(
work.((
12(
TEACHING PRACTICES, TECHNOLOGY USE, AND INQUIRY

288

Appendix I
Photo of an Energy Use Monitor Belkin Device

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Despite the widespread availability and frequency of use of technological tools in the classrooms, there is little empirical research on examining the teaching practices and how teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry. This multi-case study examined the teaching practices of two science teachers and how they used the technology to support scientific inquiry in 1:1 classrooms. The findings of this study indicated that the teacher participants’ use of time and technology supported simple inquiry. Technological tools engaged students in scientific processes, but not complex thinking or student questioning, during inquiry process. Furthermore, the study found that technology use supported student engagement in simple inquiry, with or without contextualized learning. Technology use supported cooperation and engagement of students in simple inquiry, with or without the development of scientific knowledge. This study contributes critical knowledge on the teaching practices and how teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry in a 1:1 classroom setting. Finally, the implications and recommendations for practice, policy, and future research are explored.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Culturally responsive teaching in science: an action research study aimed at supporting a resident teacher in developing inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons

PDF

A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school

PDF

4th space teaching: incorporating teachers' funds of knowledge, students' funds of knowledge, and school knowledge in multi-centric teaching

PDF

A teacher's use of data to support classroom instruction in an urban elementary school

PDF

How do teacher beliefs shape the approaches used to support low-income, Black, White, and Latino students in Advanced Placement English?

PDF

Transformational technology practices: a case study

PDF

Impact of technology on teaching and learning practices at high‐technology use K-12 schools: a case study

PDF

Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Teachers' pedagogy and perceptions of technology integration: a mixed‐methods case study of kindergarten teachers

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

PDF

A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

Integration of technology and teaching and learning practices at a technology magnet elementary school: a case study

PDF

Technology integration and its impact on 21st century learning and instruction: a case study

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of the epistemic interface between indigeneity and technology in the Cook Islands

PDF

21st century teaching and learning with technology integration at an innovative high school: a case study

PDF

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

PDF

Technology integration and innovation in teaching and learning: a case study

PDF

Transformational technology practices in K-12 schools: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Venzon, Nel Cevallos, Jr. (author)

Core Title A multi-case study on teaching practices and how teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry in 1:1 classrooms

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 01/31/2018

Defense Date 12/12/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag 1:1 classrooms,educational technology affordances,OAI-PMH Harvest,scientific inquiry,scientific practices,teaching practices,technology use

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Freking, Frederick (committee member)

Creator Email nelvenzonjr@gmail.com,nvenzon@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-465736

Unique identifier UC11268070

Identifier etd-VenzonNelC-5981.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-465736 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-VenzonNelC-5981.pdf

Dmrecord 465736

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Venzon, Nel Cevallos, Jr.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA