features

Teaching for scientificliteracy with aninteractive whiteboardby Karen Murcia

Developing scientific iiteracy drove the teaching and learning experiences provided topre-service primary education teachers. Interactive whiteboard (tWB) pedagogy was usedto engage and motivate these students' to explore science's role in making sense of ourworld and to understand key scientific concepts. Active science learning connected to socialcontexts was facilitated in workshops by the use of the technology. Using the IWB as aconvergence tooi facilitated the development of creative teaching resources that linkedinternet sites and on-line activities with hands on science investigations. It enabled fluidaccess to real life science contexts, supported a range of learning styles and when usedappropriately placed students at the centre of the learning. This paper discusses a sampleof the IWB science activities used and considers the potential of interactive whiteboardtechnology for contributing to the development of scientific literacy.

Introduction

The integration of information andcommunication technology intoscience classrooms is increasingly

important for engaging and motivatingtoday's students. In the developed'minority' countries technology isintegral to everyday life and for manypeople the phrase 'Google it' hasbecome synonymous with 'I don'tknow but I can find out' Our studentsexperience both the opportunity anddemand to operate in a technologicalworld in which they can connect via theInternet to almost every corner of theworld, To inform learning and teaching,Hackling and Prain (2006) conductedan analysis of a series of seminalAustralian research and professiona!documents. The dominate characteristicsof effective science teaching identifiedby them, were life and communityrelevant science learning experiences,active engagement and inquiry learningfocused on outcomes that contributeto scientific literacy. In particular, theystated that in effective science teaching;'Information and CommunicationTechnologies (ICT) are exploited toenhance learning.' (p. 19). Educationalresearch has suggested it is possibleto integrate ICT effectively intoclassrooms with the use of interactivewhiteboard technology (Riel, Schwarz,Hitt, 2002; Shenton & Pagett, 2007,Murcia & McKenzie, 2008). Interactive

whiteboards are becoming increasinglypopular in international educationalenvironments. It was reported at the2008 Australian Computers in EducationConference during a keynote addressthat interactive whiteboards arecurrently in over 99% of UK schools(Cox, 2008}. The technology is nowbeing introduced into Australian schoolsand educators are questioning howthe technology can be used to supportlearning and teaching.

The installation of a SMARThoard(http://smarttech.com/), interactivewhiteboard (IWB) and a ceiling mounteddata projector into a University teachingroom provided an opportunity toexplore the potential of the technology.The hardware enabled ICT practicesto be integrated with pre-serviceprimary teachers' science learning.This article presents a description ofsome of the interactive whiteboardactivities developed and trialed withapproximately fifty pre-service teachersin a Western Australian University'sintroductory science and primaryscience curriculum units. Each unitincluded a 12-week program of lecturesand workshops. Both are compulsoryunits in ihe Bachelor of Educationprimary program. The describedactivities are framed here by a review ofpertinent literature in the field of IWBpedagogy that considers the potentialbenefits of the technology. The aim of

this paper is to share ideas and supportteachers as they integrate interactivewhiteboard technology into the scienceclassroom.

What are the benefitsin using an interactivewhiteboard?It is suggested by some researchersthat contributing to the increasingpopularity of interactive whiteboardsis the suitability of the technologyfor whole class interaction and that itenables teachers to embed ICT intoeveryday classroom life (Haldane 2007;Murcia & McKenzie, 2008). IntegratingICT into daily classroom practice ispossible with an IWB as it enablesstudents and teachers to interact withall the functions of a desk top computerthrough the board's large touch sensitivesurface. Any software on the computercan be interacted with at the boardso it effectively becomes a port forincorporating a range of multimediaresources such as written text, pictures,diagrams, photos, video and onlineweiDsites into whole group teachingand learning activities. In addition, theIWB software enables the creation ofinteractive activities designed to suitstudents' specific learning needs in anycontext. The multimodal functionalityof the IWB provides students withthe opportunity to express their ideas

Voiume 54 I Number 4 I December 2008 teachingscience

not only verbally but graphically orpictoriaily and as such supports a rangeof learning styles.Schuck and Kearney (2007) investigatedthe use of IWB in K-12 pedagogy inNSW primary and secondary schools.The teachers, students and schoolexecutives participating in this studyidentified the following benefits fromusing IWBs:• Facilitation of reflective practice• Ease of use• Discovery and learning of new skills• Value as a catalyst for teacher

learning• The visual nature of the board• Immediacy, flexibility and

convenience• Interactivity• The match to students' digital

culture (p. 4)There are different levels in theseresponses which Is reflective of theshift in perspective from the schoolexecutives to the community of practicein actual classrooms.

What interactive scienceactivities are possible withan IWB7Teaching and learning for thedevelopment of scientific literacy withthe use of interactive whiteboard (IWB)technology has become an area ofinterest for researchers and classroomteachers. Studies specifically on IWBuse in science are currently limited.However, a study conducted in theUK by Hennessy, Deaney, Ruthvenand Winterbottom (2007) did addresspedagogical strategies for using the IWBin school science. Their specific focuswas on teacher mediation between theIWB and the pupils. The participatingteachers were found to exploit thedynamic and manipulative nature of thetechnology in order to 'focus thinking onkey scientific concepts and processes, tounpack, explain and organically buildthem up and to negotiate new, sharedunderstandings' (p. 297).Furthermore, this current study foundthat active science learning connectedto social contexts was increasinglypossible with the use of interactivewhiteboard technology. The technologyenabled the development of creativescience teaching resources that linkeddirectly to internet sites and on-lineactivities. It enabled fluid access toonline real life science contexts whichcould be annotated at the board withthe interactive tools. Consistent withHennessy et al. (2007), this study alsofound that the IWB created a fluidspace where interactive communicationallowed the teacher and students toexplore science ideas together, pose

questions and reconcile scientificand informal ideas. Abstract scienceconcepts could be modeled on the IWBand students were able to demonstratetheir scientific knowledge morereadily while receiving feedback frominteractive activities and their peers.The following IWB examples representa snap shot of the range of activitiestrialed in the pre-service teachers'science workshops. The activitiesor tasks represent parts that builttowards the achievement of learningoutcomes in any one workshop.The aim was to engage students andprovide opportunities for constructionof scientific understandings. Theassumption was that to be effectiveprimary science teachers the studentsneeded to develop their scientificliteracy. They would develop a general,broad and useful understanding ofscience that contributed to theircompetence and disposition to usescience to meet the personal andsocial demands of their life at home, atwork and in the community (Murcia,2007). That is, with an understandingof key enduring science concepts andthe investigative and social aspects ofworking scientifically they would havethe ability to:

• Use science as a tool for inquiry ordiscovery;

• Use science for learning, informingor contributing to problem solving;and,

• Critically reflect on the use or rote ofscience in context.

Generally, the IWB was used ina teacher-directed way to open aworkshop in order to engage andmotivate the students, provide anopportunity for students to demonstratetheir current science understandingsand for establishing the objectivesand instructions needed for followingactivities and tasks. The multiple smallgroup tasks in the workshop includedhands-on experiments, minds-ondiscussion questions and interactiveexperiences at the board. Tasks weredesigned to connect with familiarknowledge and every day experiencesbut challenge students to extend theirthinking and understanding of keyscientific concepts and processes.

1. Visually appealing interactive displaysPictures, diagrams and photos wereimported or captured using theinteractive software camera tool andpresented with text in the IWB software'working space' documents callednotepads. Microsoft clip art, digitalphotos and images from the interactivesoftwares Gallery were easily importedinto workshop notepads. Visuallyappealing displays were created that

could be edited, moved or annotated atthe board.Figures were imported from the internetso students could work with data fromcurrent and relevant science contexts.The interactive tools allowed emphasisto be given to point, trend and themeanalysis as graphs were annotatedduring discussion. In addition, videoclips of moving objects such as a rollercoaster were linked to the notepadinsuring smooth transition betweenmediums. The video clips couldbe stopped at key points and thenannotated to highlight relevant conceptssuch as kinetic and potential energy inthe case of the roller coaster.

2. Online informationA range of online learning resourceswere also accessed via links embeddedin the interactive notepads. The websitesused in the initial trial providedcurrent information about sociallyrelevant contexts in which scientificknowledge assisted in making senseof the information presented. Forexample, the website Informationfor Action: Water pollution at http://www.information.org/cgibin/gPage.pl?menu=menua.txt&main=waterpolgen.txt&s=Water%20sewage.Sites such as this allowed students toaccess information as questions oruncertainties arose in their learning.In this example, the case of waterpollution was a relevant and meaningfulcontext for drawing out and illustratingkey science concepts such as puresubstances, mixtures, elements andcompounds. The IWB tools allowedinteraction with the displayedinformation. Key words were highlightedor underlined and notes or questionswere written over the internet site.The camera tool enabled the site andannotations to be captured and savedto the computer. The discussion of thewater pollution site then led studentsto discuss and debate the question ofwhat's in a bottle of 'pure mountainspring' drinking water. Science's rolein informed consumerism was thenconsidered in relation to on-line siteswhich advertised bottled drinking water.

3. Science in the newsDuring weekly workshops reports ofscience in the news were viewed as aconcrete representation of what wascurrent and relevant to the students'lives and communities. A range of dailynews resources were accessed such as:• Australian Broadcasting

Commission (ABC) site, News inScience at bttp://wyv:w.abc.net.au/science/news/.

• Australian Academy of Science site.Nova: Science in the News at http://www.science.org.au/nova/,

teachingscience Voiume 54 I Number 4 I December 2008

The Australian newspaper online athttp://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/scienceThe Society for Science and thePublic online US magazine 5c/enceNews special section, 5c/ence Newsfor Kids at http://www.sciencenews.org/view/interest/id/S/topic/ScienceNews For KidsThe Royal Society, which is thenational academy of science ofthe UK and the Commonwealth,Science in the News at http://

The editing function on the IWB allowedscience terms, concepts and proceduresto be highlighted in the news reports.This assisted students to focus on thescience issues relevant to the socialcontext and to participate in discussion.Clarification of key science conceptsand procedures occurred in this process.This strategy aimed to highlight tostudents the relevance of science totheir lives and its importance in makinginformed decisions.

4. Science in popular cultureVirtual science demonstrations were alsofound online and linked into interactivenotepads for efficient and timelytransitions in the workshops. Some ofthe most engaging and entertaining werefound on Youtube. For example, theAlkali Metal clip at http://www.you tu be.com/watch?v=cqeVEFFzz7Econtained entertaining commentaryand highly explosive reactions ofalkali metals with water. Studentswould never experience some of thesereactions in a classroom due to safetyrisks. Interestingly, the video not onlyprompted discussion on safety butalso gender stereotypes in science.Students considered who was doing theexperiments and who was assisting andthe image each portrayed. In addition,students experienced the intersectionof science with entertainment throughthe clip People run on a pool ofOobleck, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH1AcASsf6U.

This proved to be far more humorousand engaging than the small tubsof Oobleck (corn flour and water)investigated in the hands on componentof the workshop. The IWB enableda direct link to the online sites andreduced the risk of being directed toinappropriate sites from a search engine.

5. Interactive on-line activitiesA range of online learning resourceswere also considered for their potentialto support the students' learning.Interactive sites were found to be themost effective in engaging the students.Students were encouraged to work insmall groups at the board and clarifytheir learning as they engaged with

Volume 54 1 Number 4 I December 2008

the resources. The large, hands onnature of the board allowed studentsto experience kinaesthetic learning.For example, the Interactive Library:Explain it with molecules site contains3D interactive models of water, ice,methane, carbon monoxide, graphite,diamond, salt, soap and DNA on lineat http://www.edinformatics.com/interactive molecules/water.htmStudents rotated the virtual modelsand experienced their dimensionalitywhile reading and talking about thesurrounding descriptive text. Studentsalso engaged with chemical reactionsand ionic bonding through interactiveactivities that provide feedback on theiractions and answers. Ionic bondingwas observed and conducted throughthe interactive activity available athttp://www.chem.iastate.edu/group/Greenbowe/sections/projectfolder/flashfiles/reaction/bondingi.html.This activity highlighted the bondingbetween metals and non-metals andtheir positions on the periodic table.Students also balanced chemicalequations through the fun-based-learning site at http://funbasedlearning.com/chemistry/chembalancer/quesT.htm.The interactivity of the sites keptstudents active in the learning andencouraged group discussion andcollaboration with the tasks. Thestudents were clearly motivated andenjoyed the 'game' aspect of the tasks.This was particularly evident whenlearning key ideas In energy through theEnergy Millionaire Game at http;//www.quia.com/rr/29588.html.The Learning Federation's LearningObjects and Digital Resources,managed by the Australian CurriculumCorporation were also found to containa range of useful materials well suitedto use on the interactive whiteboard.The Learning Object Catalogues inscience are on line at http://www.thglçarningfederation.edu.au/foL.teachers/catalogues/catalogues, html.After critically reviewing onlinematerials available at no cost theresources described above were founduseful, however, many others had majorlimitations including inappropriatepedagogy and poor instructions.

6. Constructed interactive resourcesAt times students' learning needs werebetter meet by developing originalinteractive activities with the IWBsoftware tools and simple interactivetechniques. Creating original resourcesallowed the learning experience to becustomised to the specific needs of thestudents. Experience showed that timespent creating an original interactiveresources could be time saved trying

to find appropriate online materials.The student teachers engaged positivelywith constructed interactive activities, inparticular the modelling and recordingof sugar dissolving (Figure 1 ). In thisexample, students worked in groups onthe IWB and discussed the effect of heaton the dissolving of sugar at a particlelevel while physically moving theparticles to model their ideas. The recordfunction on the IWB allowed both theirvoices and actions to be recorded.The recordings saved to the computer,allowed the students to review thetask and for their understandings to beassessed. This was a powerful tool forformative assessment as it highlightedmisconceptions held by some studentsand also provided learning and teachingoppnrtunitie'i.

Figure 1. Dissolvi::.^ ^L:^.::7. Students creating interactiveresourcesDeeper levels of interactivity wereobserved when students wererequired to create and explain theirown interactive resources. Theywere observed, discussing theirscience conceptions, challengingmisconceptions, debating acceptedscientific views and negotiating contentto be included. For example, the pre-service teachers were asked to constructa concept cartoon that illustratedtheir understanding of what makes itrain (Figure 2). They worked in smallgroups and negotiated the key ideas tobe presented. Various ideas were triedout on the IWB, some moved whileothers were edited or erased. The pre-service teachers reviewed their conceptcartoons and evaluated its relativemerits for use in their future classroomsfor eliciting children's understandings.Interactive links to exploratory text andmusic were later included.

Hennessy ei al. (2007) suggested thebasic tenets of deeper interactivity were'support for shared cognition, especiallyarticulation, collective evaluation andre-working of pupils own ideas andconstruction of new knowledge' {p.298). These characteristics of deepinteractivity were evident as studentsworked collaboratively on the designof their concept cartoon and negotiatedits content. Deep interactivity wasevident in the students' conversations

teach jngscience

and manipulations with the materialson the IWB. The activity also resultedin self assessment and peer feedbackon conceptual understandings ofevaporation, condensation andprecipitation.

Figure 2. What makes it rain?

What has been learnedfrom experience?The strategies described in this paperfor using an interactive whiteboardrepresent parts of the holistic approachrequired to develop students' scientificliteracy. They provided a context forconsidering the impact of interactivewhiteboard technology on students'science learning and should promotereflection on effective interactivepedagogy. Questions emerging out ofthis experience with using the IWB inscience workshops are used to drive thefollowing discussion.

1. Does the IWB improve students'attainment of science outcomes?The teaching benefits emerging outof IWB research include efficiency,versatility, multimodal presentation andinteractivity {Smith, Higgins, Wall &Miller, 2005). Furthermore, Becta (2007)in their report titled Evaluation ofthePrimary Schools Whiteboard ExpansionProject (UK) stated finding evidenceof increased student attainment as aresult of being taught science with aninteractive whiteboard. For example,data from the UK national tests, keystage 1, showed that when studentslearned science with an IWB,

Girls of all attainment levels will makebetter progress with increased access.There are indications that this positiveexperience may be shared by averageand high-attaining boys but we foundinconsistent resuits for low-attaining boys(p. 5).

The attainment gains on national testsshown by the UK sample of primaryschool children appeared to be relatedto the embedding of effective IWBpedagogy into teachers' daily practice.That is.

When teachers have had sustainedexperience (around two years) of using

teachingscience

an interactive whiteboard, they are ableto change their teaching practices tomake best uses of its facilities (p. 3)

Kennewell& Beauchamp (2007) arguethat it is less clear that the reportedadvantages in using an IWB are being

transformed into benefits for learning.They stated that the 'effect of ICT onlearners' attainment depends cruciallyon the teacher, the pedagogicalapproach adopted, the ICT resourcesemployed and the learning objectivesintended' (p. 227). This would suggestthe IWB can only make a differenceto students' attainment of learningoutcomes when it is integratedwith effective science teachingand learning practises. Effectivescience teaching requires studentsto be actively engaged, constructingunderstandings and participatingin inquiry learning focused onoutcomes that contribute to scientific

literacy. Consequently it is importantfor science teachers to critically reflecton the manner in which the IWB isincorporated into classroom practice.

2. Are the students at the centre of thelearning?Hennessy ei a!. (2007) suggestedthat traditionally whole class scienceinstruction with technology hadlargely been restricted to computerdemonstrations with little interactionfrom students. Similarly, when theteacher is the only operator of the IWBthe result can be a 'stand and deliver'approach to teaching which, mayoffer little more than the traditionalcomputer demonstration. Research andclassroom experience show that theIWB can increase the pace and appealof a lesson but can also create a focuson the teacher and board rather thanstudents' learning. Interactive techniquescan only be effective when extendedinto interactive pedagogy that placesstudents at the centre ofthe teachingand learning experience.Focus groups from Hennessy ef al's(2007) study stressed the importanceof the hands-on and student-centred nature of IWB practice. Theteachers and students from that studyunanimously agreed that 'active physicalmanipulation of objects by pupilson the IWB was beneficial in termsof learning and motivation—there'ssomething about touching a screenthat really excites them' (p. 289). Itwas also evident in the current studythat interactive pedagogy surroundingthe use of an IWB could create acommunity of learners in which studentsnot only watch presentations on theboard but also physically interactand mentally engage. Providing self-paced small group activities on theIWB increased this group of students'

independence from the workshopteacher and required them to displaygreater self direction and engagementwith the learning process. Hennessy eia/., (2007) also noted the importanceof shared responsibility for IWB activityand learning. They stated, 'An importantaspect of knowledge building wasteachers' creation of opportunities forsharing with pupils the responsibility forlearning and its application, furtheredtheir participation' (p. 296).

3. Is the board used interactively?The IWB clearly acts as a convergencetool for multiple types of media and theexamples of IWB activities discussedhere suggest strategies for interactingwith and annotating these mediums.However, the capabilities of the boardcan be under-utilized if it is solely usedas a display surface for a data projector.Consideration should be given to usingmanipulations reported by Miller eia!. (2004) that facilitate interactivitybetween teacher, material and students.They listed these as drag and drop;hide and reveal; colour, shading andhighlighting; matching equivalentterms; movement or animation andimmediate feedback. These commonlyused techniques should be explored andadapted so they can be used effectivelyin science teaching and learning.

4. Does the interactive whiteboardcomplement hands-on and minds-onactivities occurring in the lesson?The intention was not for the IWBto replace hands-on and minds-onactivities in the workshop but rather tocomplement and extend each learningexperience. The interactive activitieswere integrated and consistent with theconceptual and procedural knowledgedevelopment occurring in workshops.Importantly, integrated through theinteractive activities described in thispaper were higher order questions andstudent led discussions. Questioningwas the means for focussing students'attention, provoking action and formaking connections.

Giving consideration to the type ofquestions used with the IWB wasconsidered important as more recentresearch suggests there is a possible riskthat student think time can be reduceddue to the quick lesson pace possiblewith the technology. Hennessey ei a/.(2007) stated.

The ever present concern to maintainlesson pace means that ironically IWBuse may afford even less thinking timeand opportunity for pupil input thanother forms of educational technology(p. 285).

In light of this experience the role ofquestioning in effective IWB use inscience education is an area worthy offuture research. Furthermore, Higgins,

Volume 54 I Number 4 I December 2006

Beachamp and Miller (2007) in theirreview of the literature on interactivewhiteboards identified researchevidence showing that 'interactivityis most effectively sustained througheffective questioning as weil as a widerrange of activity' (p. 216).

ConclusionThe integration of IWB technology withpre-service teachers' science workshopsrequired ongoing critical reflection onthe interactive tools, students learningneeds and effective science pedagogyfor developing scientific literacy. TheIWB pedagogy described in this paperevolved out of existing practice butalso required a willingness to learnnew skills, break with habit and thinkcreatively. Producing new interactivenotepads each week generated areflective cycle of planning, acting,recording and reflecting. It was acreative cycle that both drew on andchallenged existing practice. Ultimatelyit was a rewarding experience whichreceived positive feedback fromstudents who consistently attended allworkshops. Reflecting on the experiencein relation to the IWB researchliterature highlighted that the answerto engaging students and facilitatingtheir development of scientific literacywas not simply in the technologybut in the way it could enhance andextend effective pedagogy. Higginsei al. (2007) shared this view; 'goodteaching remains good teaching with orwithout the technology; the technologymight enhance the pedagogy only if the

teachers and pupils engaged with it andunderstood its potential in such a waythat the technology is not seen as anend in itself but as another pedagogicalmeans to achieve teaching and learninggoals' (p.217). Specifically, by actingas a port for a range of informationand communication technologies theIWB enabled real life contexts to drivestudent centred teaching and learningand as such provided opportunities forthe development of scientific literacy.

Referencesßec.tä (2007). Evaluation of the primary schoolswhiteboard expansion project-summary repon.Report to the department for children, schoolsand families. Al http://partners.bectti.orfj.uk/index.php^section-rh&catcode- re rp02&rid^l4422 (accessed 10/03/08)Cox, M. (2008). Students' formal and informaluses of digital technologies: Implications forteachers and scboois. Keynote address. TheAustralian Computers in Education Conference.Canberra. At http://www.acec2008.info/confpapers/res u Its. aspHaldane. M (2007). Interactivity and the digitalwhiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning.Learning Media and Technology. 32:3, 257-270.Hackling, M. and Prain, V. ¡2006). Primaryconnections: Stage 2 trial researcb report.Australian Academy of Science.Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K. andWinterhottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategiesfor using the interactive whiteboard to fosterlearner participation in school science. Learning,Media and Tecbnohgy, 32, 3, 283-301.Higgins, S. Beachamp, G. and Miller, D.(2007). Reviewing the literature on interactivewhiteboards. Learning, Media and Tecbnohgy,32,3,213-225.Kenneweii, S. & Beauchamp, G (2007). Thefeatures of interactive whiteboards and theirinfluence on learning. Learning, Media and

Technology. 32:3,227-241.Miller, D., Glover, D. & Averis, D. (2004),Matcbing technology and pedagogy in teacbingmatbematics: understanding fractions usinga virtual manipulative fraction wall. Riperpresented at the British Educational ResearchAssociation Conference. UMIST, Manchester,September. Available online at: http;//www.kee le. ac. u k/tleptVetl/ia w/dtKs/B E R A°/.,2 0Paper7o20Sep%202004.pdf (accessed 1/12/07)Murcia, K. (2007). Science for the 21" century.Teaching for scientific literacy in the primaryclassroom. Teacbing Science. 53{2), 16-19.Murcia, K. & McKenzie, S. (2008). Interactivewbiteboard tecbnohgy: Engaging cbiidren witbliteracy and numeracy rieb contexts. Reportto the Department of Education Science andTraining. Canberra, Australia.Riel, M., Schwarz, ). & Hitt, A. (2002). Schoolchange with technology: Closing the digitaldivide. Information Tecbnohgy in CbildboodEducation Annual, 147-179.Schuck, 5. & Kearney, M. (2007). Exploringpedagogy with interactive wbiteboards: a casestudy of six schools. At http://wwvv.ed-dev.uts.edu.au/teac hered/research/iwbproject/pdfs/iwbreportweb.pdf (accessed 5/06/08)Shenton, A & Pagett, L. (2007). From bored' toscreen: the use of the interactive whiteboard forliteracy in six primary classrooms in England.Literacy, 41(3), 129-136.5mith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K. & Miller, |.(2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon orbandwagon? A critical review of the literature.journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21,91-101 Eia

About the author:Dr Karen Murcia is a Science EducationLecturer at School of Education, MurdochUniversity, Western Australia.

nationDlMCE,uleeh

sat 1 6 - sun 24 augustwww.scienceweek.info.au

ASTA would like to recognise the work and efforts of theAustralian Science Teachers Association state/territoryNational Science Week Representatives who assisted withand facilitated local school participation.

Helen Shead (SEA^ACT)Michèle Mawer (STANSW)Jenny Heath (STANT)Susan Kennedy-Smith (STAQ)

Rob Thomas (STAT)Ann Pisarevsky (STAV)Priscilta Martinus (SASTA)Mark Merritt (STAWA)

ASTA sincerely thanks all the teachers, students, staff and parents in schools across Australiawho participated in National Science Week 16-24 August. A special thank you to teachers whoevaluated their 2008 National Science Week activities by faxback to ASTA.The interest, dedication and voluntary hours given by school communities in every State andTerritory of Australia are what make National Science Week a unique celebration.

Vtíume 54 \ Number 4 | December 2000 teachingscience