Literature Review in Science Education and the Role of Ict: Promise ...

Literature Review in Science Education and the Role of

ICT: Promise, Problems and Future Directions

Jonathon Osborne, Sara Hennessy

To cite this version:

Jonathon Osborne, Sara Hennessy. Literature Review in Science Education and the Role ofICT: Promise, Problems and Future Directions. A NESTA Futurelab Research report - report6. 2003.

HAL Id: hal-00190441

https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190441

Submitted on 23 Nov 2007

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinee au depot et a la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publies ou non,emanant des etablissements d’enseignement et derecherche francais ou etrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou prives.

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr

https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190441

Literature Review in Science Education and the Role of ICT: Promise, Problemsand Future Directions

REPORT 6:

FUTURELAB SERIES

Jonathon Osborne, King’s College LondonSara Hennessy, University of Cambridge

FOREWORD

“Science education in the UK standspoised to make the second fundamentalchange in its nature. Having won thebattle that science education should be acompulsory element of all children’seducation, it is now attempting to developa curriculum which is appropriate for all.”

Today, what ‘counts’ as science andscience teaching is in a state of flux. This, however, is not new – for 150 yearsthere have been debates about thepurpose, nature and role of scienceeducation in our society. Any designer ofresources and tools for the teaching ofscience therefore needs to be able tounderstand these debates, and to beaware of the origins and reasons for thechanges that are currently taking place.

This review is intended as a usefulcomponent in raising that awareness. It isa guide to the history, principles, debatesand practices of science teaching in the21st century and an introduction to theroles that digital technologies, as key

new resources for scientific endeavourand communication today, might play inthe changing practices of scienceteaching in our schools.

While the importance of informal learningis recognised, this review describes andcontextualises the changes that aretaking place in science educationspecifically in UK secondary schools. Itshould be noted that Futurelab’s partnerpublication ‘Primary Science and ICT’(2003) explores the development ofprimary science while a further Futurelabreport to be published in early 2004 willaddress the key role of informal learningin science education.

We are keen to receive feedback on the Futurelab reports and welcomecomments at [email protected].

Martin OwenDirector of Learning Futurelab

1

CONTENTS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

SECTION 1PERSPECTIVES ON THE AIMS OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 6

THE ROOTS OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 6

A CONTEMPORARY PICTURE OF SCIENCE 10

THE PURPOSES OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 12

SCIENCE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 16

SECTION 2THE POTENTIAL OF ICT INSUPPORTING SCIENCEEDUCATION 19

THE USE OF ICT TO SUPPORTSCIENCE TEACHING ANDLEARNING 19

ICT USE AND PEDAGOGY – AN INEXTRICABLE LINK 28

USE OF ICT IN THE SCHOOLSCIENCE LAB – A REALITY CHECK 36

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT 39

CONCLUSION 40

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 41

BIBLIOGRAPHY 42

Literature Review in Science Educationand the Role of ICT: Promise, Problemsand Future Directions

REPORT 6:

FUTURELAB SERIES

Jonathon Osborne, King’s College LondonSara Hennessy, University of Cambridge

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WHY DOES SCIENCE EDUCATION MATTER?

Science education has its roots in therecognition by Victorian society that it hadchanged – changed from an agrariansociety to one dominated by, and relianton, scientific and technological expertise.In1851, the Great Exhibition brought therealisation that this new society could onlybe sustained by ensuring that a body ofpeople were educated in science andtechnology. However, whilst there was littledisagreement about the necessity forincorporating science into the curriculum,the form and content of that scienceeducation has since that time been amatter of considerable debate.

The opposing camps have lain between, onthe one hand, those who would emphasisethe need for science education to develop aknowledge and understanding of the basicscientific principles – the foundation onwhich the edifice rests – and, on the other,those who would argue for an emphasis onthe processes of scientific thinking. Thelatter contend that the value of scienceeducation lies in the critical and evaluativehabits of mind it develops that are ofubiquitous value for all individuals in alldomains.

A retrospective view shows that as a rule,the dominant model of the curriculum hasbeen one which has seen scienceeducation as a pre-professional form oftraining for the minority of today’s youthwho will become the scientists oftomorrow. This characteristic has arguablybeen responsible for the undervaluing ofscience within the British establishmentwho have historically regarded it as a

lesser form of knowledge than thehumanities which, in contrast, were oftenseen as offering an education of thecomplete individual.

Current research would suggest, however,that there are four common rationales forscience education:

• the utilitarian: the view that a knowledgeof science is practically useful toeveryone. However this view isincreasingly questionable in a societywhere most technologies are no longerremediable by any one other than anexpert

• the economic: the view that we mustensure an adequate supply ofscientifically trained individuals tosustain and develop an advancedindustrial society

• the cultural argument: the view thatscience and technology are one, if notthe greatest, achievement ofcontemporary society, and that aknowledge thereof is an essentialprerequisite for the educated individual

• the democratic: the argument that manyof the political and moral dilemmasposed by contemporary society are of ascientific nature. Participating in thedebate surrounding their resolutionrequires a knowledge of some aspectsof science and technology. Hence,educating the populace in science andtechnology is an essential requirementto sustain a healthy democratic society.

THE CHANGING CONTEXT

Two factors have led to calls for change inthe nature of school science education.

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

a. The changing relationship betweenscience and society. The past 30 yearshave seen a transformation in society’sview of science. 30 years ago, the thenPrime Minister, Harold Wilson, was ableto offer a vision of the ‘white heat of thetechnological revolution’, men werelanding on the moon, and iconicsymbols such as Concorde heralded anew dawn. In contrast, today, after along litany of environmental andtechnological disasters such asChernobyl, global warming, ozonedepletion, Bhopal, BSE and more,science is seen as a source of threat aswell as a source of solutions.

In addition, recent research hastransformed our understanding of scienceby highlighting the ways in which cultureand values impact upon the developmentof scientific ideas and practices. Theperception of scientific progress today is,therefore, more ambivalent than 30 yearsago both in terms of its ‘impacts’ onsociety, and in terms of its claims to act asa value-neutral domain.

b. In the 1980s, the economic case forscience education was successful inarguing that science should be acompulsory part of all school sciencecurricula in many countries across theglobe. The outcome, however, was theimposition of a model of scienceeducation designed for the smallminority of children who would go on tobecome scientists. In recent years,however, it has been increasinglyargued that compulsory scienceeducation can only be justified if it offerssomething of universal value to all.Hence, in the last decade thedemocratic and cultural argumentshave come to the fore to argue that a

complete science education should givea much more holistic picture of science,concentrating less on the details andmore on the broad explanatory themesthat science offers. In addition, a muchmore comprehensive treatment of a setof ideas about how science is done,evaluated and functions is required.

The most significant product of this debateso far has been the development of a newAS curriculum entitled Science for PublicUnderstanding which has attempted toarticulate a model of school science whichmeets these two challenges. This courseaddresses a collection of themes in the lifescience and physical sciences through aset of topics which cover the major ideasof science, ideas about data andexplanations, the social influences onscience and technology, causal links, riskand risk assessment, and decisionsinvolving science and technology. Thismodel is now being extended to the GCSEcurriculum with the development of a pilotscheme – 21st Century Science – a coursewhich will consist of a similar, butsimplified core, and then a set of optionalmodules for those who wish to continuewith the more academic or appliedscience.

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF CHANGE

The changes embodied in these coursesare radical. Traditionally school sciencehas ignored any treatment or explorationof its nature as such knowledge isconsidered to be either largely irrelevant toits contemporary practice, or to be bestacquired en passant. Hence, the pedagogyof school science has tended to bedidactic, authoritarian and non-discursive

3

REPORT 6LITERATURE REVIEW IN SCIENCE EDUCATION AND THE ROLE OF ICT: PROMISE, PROBLEMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

JONATHON OSBORNE, KING’S COLLEGE LONDON & SARA HENNESSY, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

with little room for autonomous learning orthe development of critical reasoning. Inaddition, science teachers, themselves theproduct of the standard model of scienceeducation, often have naïve views about thenature of science. Teaching about sciencerather than teaching its content willrequire a significant change in its mode ofteaching and an improved knowledge andunderstanding in teachers.

THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF ICT IN TRANSFORMING TEACHING AND LEARNING

While there are changes in the views of thenature of science and the role of scienceeducation, the increasing prevalence ofInformation and CommunicationTechnologies (ICT) also offers a challengeto the teaching and learning of science,and to the models of scientific practiceteachers and learners might encounter.

ICTs, for example, offer a range of differenttools for use in school science activity,including:

• tools for data capture, processing andinterpretation – data logging systems,databases and spreadsheets, graphingtools, modelling environments

• multimedia software for simulation ofprocesses and carrying out ‘virtualexperiments’

• information systems

• publishing and presentation tools

• digital recording equipment

• computer projection technology

• computer-controlled microscope.

These forms of ICT can enhance both thepractical and theoretical aspects ofscience teaching and learning. Thepotential contribution of technology usecan be conceptualised as follows:

• expediting and enhancing workproduction; offering release fromlaborious manual processes and moretime for thinking, discussion andinterpretation

• increasing currency and scope ofrelevant phenomena by linking schoolscience to contemporary science andproviding access to experiences nototherwise feasible

• supporting exploration andexperimentation by providing immediate,visual feedback

• focusing attention on over-archingissues, increasing salience of underlyingabstract concepts

• fostering self-regulated andcollaborative learning

• improving motivation and engagement.

ICT USE AND PEDAGOGY – AN INEXTRICABLE LINK

Current research would suggest, however,that it is not appropriate to assume simplythat the introduction of such technologiesnecessarily transforms science education.Rather, we need to acknowledge thecritical role played by the teacher, increating the conditions for ICT-supportedlearning through selecting and evaluatingappropriate technological resources, anddesigning, structuring and sequencing aset of learning activities. Pedagogy forusing ICT effectively includes:

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• ensuring that use is appropriate and‘adds value’ to learning activities

• building on teachers’ existing practiceand on pupils’ prior conceptions

• structuring activity while offering pupilssome responsibility, choice andopportunities for active participation

• prompting pupils to think aboutunderlying concepts and relationships;creating time for discussion, reasoning,analysis and reflection

• focusing research tasks and developingskills for finding and critically analysinginformation

• linking ICT use to ongoing teaching andlearning activities

• exploiting the potential of whole classinteractive teaching and encouragingpupils to share ideas and findings.

THE REALITY OF ICT USE IN THE SCHOOL SCIENCE LAB

Teachers’ motivation to use ICT in theclassroom is, at present, adverselyinfluenced by a number of constraintsincluding: lack of time to gain confidenceand experience with technology; limitedaccess to reliable resources; a sciencecurriculum overloaded with content;assessment that requires no use of thetechnology; and a lack of subject-specificguidance for using ICT to support learning.While this technology can, in principle, beemployed in diverse ways to supportdifferent curriculum goals and forms ofpedagogy, such constraints have oftenstifled teachers’ use of ICT in ways whicheffectively exploit its interactivity.Consequently, well-integrated and effectiveclassroom use of ICT is currently rare.

Research shows that even wheretechnology is available, it is often under-used and hindered by a set of practicalconstraints and teacher reservations.Whole class interactive teaching is alsounder-developed. At present, effective useof ICT in science seems to be confined to a minority of enthusiastic teachers ordepartments.

On the whole, use of ICT in school scienceis driven by – rather than transformative of– the prescribed curriculum andestablished pedagogy. In sum, teacherstend to use ICT largely to support, enhanceand complement existing classroompractice rather than re-shaping subjectcontent, goals and pedagogies. However,teacher motivation and commitment arehigh and practice is gradually changing.The New Opportunities Fund (NOF)scheme for training teachers in using ICTin the classroom appears to have hadmore success in science than in othersubjects. Teachers are now beginning todevelop and trial new strategies whichsuccessfully overcome the distractions ofthe technology and focus attention,instead, on their intended learningobjectives.

To conclude, teachers are currentlyworking towards harnessing the powerfulpotential of using ICT to support sciencelearning as far as possible, given the veryreal operational constraints. Furtherdevelopment depends on providing themwith more time, consistent access toreliable resources, encouragement andsupport, and offering specific guidance forappropriate and effective use. Assessmentframeworks (and their focus on endproducts) may also need to change inorder to evaluate – and thereby furtherencourage – ICT-supported learning.

5

CONCLUSION

To meet the new aims for scienceeducation, the science curriculum ispoised to move in a new direction. Theapproach taken by the proposed newscience curriculum for all pupils iseminently well-suited to the supportive useof interactive digital technology. As theschool curriculum begins to forge linkswith the external scientific and socialcommunities, opportunities arise for ICTuse to play a central and core role insupporting development of scientificreasoning and critical analysis skills.Those in the process of developing newdigital tools for use in the scienceclassroom need, therefore, to engage withthe new aims of science education and thescience curriculum, and to developresources that can be used by teachersboth in facilitating key aspects of scientificthinking and in building bridges betweenschools and with the wider social andscientific communities.

1 PERSPECTIVES ON THE AIMS OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

THE ROOTS OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

The Great Exhibition of 1851 was asignificant milestone in Victorian society.The technological marvel displayed both inthe structure of Crystal Palace, and theexhibits within, brought home to society atlarge the transformation that had occurredin their society in the past 100 years froman agrarian to an industrial society. Thevery landscape itself had beentransformed by the arrival of railways,canals and the factories that were tobecome the foundation of the world’sleading economy and its expandingEmpire. However, then, just as now, therewere significant worries about how thisprosperity could be sustained. Othernations, such as France, appeared to havemore advanced systems of scientificinstruction that provided for the mass ofthe population. Great Britain, in contrast,had no universal system of education forits young and, even where it did exist, therewas no requirement for any scienceeducation.

Such concern led the government of theday to propose that science educationshould form part of the elementary schoolcurriculum. The form that it should takewas one that emphasised the ‘science ofcommon things’ – essentially an educationwhich should aim to ‘foster a taste forscience’. Lyon Playfair, the then senior civilservant in the Department of Science andArt (there being no Department ofEducation at the time), argued that “thesciences of observation such as zoology,botany and physiology, are more suitableto the children of primary schools”. Theprincipal aim of such an education was to

6

in the Victorianera the principal

aim of such a‘scientific’

education wasto “educe a love

of nature”

SECTION 1

PERSPECTIVES ON THE AIMS OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

“educe a love of nature”, and the onlyintellectual development recognised as anobjective for science teaching was atraining in observation (Layton 1973). Anyaspects of physical science wereconsidered inappropriate.

Such a view was controversial then, as itwould be now. Thomas Huxley and others,in contrast, saw the function of scienceeducation as a means of intellectualdevelopment providing opportunities toengage in the exercise of reasoning byanalysing and interpreting data, and usingevidence-based arguments for appropriatescientific theories. In addition, it alsopermitted the testing of speculation. ForHuxley then, science offered a discoverableorder revealed by the application ofstandard processes. What mattered wasnot so much the content of any scienceeducation but the unique capacity thatscience offered for a training of the mind –in short that the process of engaging withscientific enquiry was much moresignificant than the content per se.

Such debates, between the value of thecontent of science versus its processes, iescientific modes of thinking, were to playthemselves out repeatedly in debatesabout the function and purpose of scienceeducation. They can be seen inArmstrong’s advocacy of the significance ofprocess (Armstrong 1891), in particular, inhis advocacy of an approach to teachingwhich came to be known as ‘guideddiscovery’, and were to emerge again inthe 1980s (Millar & Driver 1987). However,100 years later, writing a personal view ofUK primary science from 1950-82, JeanConran provides a view of elementaryscience education which is still remarkablyconsistent with Playfair’s view.

“We started the year with a ‘SeasideRoom’. Ready beforehand were displays ofshells, pebbles, and sand; aquaria with livecrabs and sea anemones; seaweeds; boxesand tables for collections made during thesummer holidays; drawing materials,paper for labelling and selection of namedspecimens, reference books and pictures.We then followed the seasons with anever-changing set of exhibits, a growingfamily of resident plants and animals, anda flow of temporary visitors brought in bythe children. They marvelled at theunfamiliar and became confident inhandling and caring for the familiar...Animals and plants were kept at home andbooks were purchased or borrowed fromthe library. Research was undertaken intocats and dogs. Diaries were kept.Expeditions to parks, museums and zooswere made on Saturdays and the childrenbrought along parents, siblings andfriends.” (Conran 1983, p18)

In secondary education, in contrast, thearguments for the centrality of science ineducation met the combined opposition ofadvocates of the Classics and ofChristianity who argued that thehumanities were to be more highly valuedthan scientific and technological educationfor the development of a roundedindividual (Barnett 2001). From theVictorian era, until at least the 1970s, thisview was forcefully articulated, particularlyby the public school community.

Thus, in spite of the centrality of scienceand technology to the success of two worldwars and the industrial revolution, thevalues that predominated in formulatingthe school science curriculum echoedMatthew Arnold's view that scientifictraining as a form of education wouldproduce only a 'useful specialist' and not a

7

for Huxley,scientific enquirywas much moresignificant thanthe content per se

truly educated man. Over this period,science education and its curriculum were predominantly seen as essentially a pre-professional preparation for thosewho were interested in pursuing scientificor technical careers and had no value as part of the cultural education of therounded individual.

The science education, essentially ascientific ‘training’, which emerges fromsuch a view inevitably emphasises thefoundational or vocational aspects of thesubject and offers a curriculum thatconsists of the fundamental concepts ofwell-established, consensually-agreedscience. However, as was argued recently:

“In focusing on the detail (for example, bysetting out the content as a list of separate‘items’ of knowledge as does the Englishand Welsh National Curriculum), we havelost sight of the major ideas that sciencehas to tell. To borrow an architecturalmetaphor, it is impossible to see the wholebuilding if we focus too closely on theindividual bricks. Yet, without a change offocus, it is impossible to see whether youare looking at St Paul’s Cathedral or a pileof bricks, or to appreciate what it is thatmakes St Paul’s one the world’s greatchurches. In the same way, an overconcentration on the detailed content ofscience may prevent students appreciatingwhy Dalton’s ideas about atoms, orDarwin’s ideas about natural selection, areamong the most powerful and significantpieces of knowledge we possess.Consequently, it is perhaps unsurprisingthat many pupils emerge from their formalscience education with the feeling that theknowledge they acquired had as muchvalue as a pile of bricks and that the taskof constructing any edifice of note wassimply too daunting – the preserve of the

boffins of the scientific elite.”Beyond 2000: Science Education for theFuture (Millar & Osborne 1998)

Such a ‘training’, as opposed to aneducation, is essentially dogmatic andauthoritarian, requiring its young acolytesto learn and assimilate a body of well-established knowledge which is essentialfor understanding the nature of thediscourse and the contemporary problemsfacing scientists. In addition, it neglectsany exploration of the nature of the subjectitself or its history. The former is ignored,as it is assumed that such knowledge willbe acquired en passant, and the latterneglected as it is assumed that theretrospective study of the history ofsciences and its methods offers noinsights into the questions that will facethe prospective entrant to the scientificcommunity. In short, such a scienceeducation is dominated by an emphasis onthe content or ‘facts’ of science rather thanits processes consisting, at its worse, of a‘frogmarch across the scientific landscape’(Osborne & Collins 2000). Where anyexploration or teaching about theprocesses of science does take place, ittends to give the impression that there is asingular scientific method (Bauer 1992;Hodson 1996). Not surprisingly, therefore,the evidence suggests that most studentsemerge from such a science educationwith very naïve views of the nature ofscience (Driver et al 1996; Lederman 1992)where science is seen as a process ofconducting experiments to derive datafrom which unambiguous generalisationsor laws are made.

Unfortunately, the dominant view thatscience education is a pre-professionalpreparation for a scientific career has beenunwittingly reinforced over the years by

8

SECTION 1


‘a frogmarchacross the

scientificlandscape’

politicians concerned by the so-called‘flight from science’ of contemporary youth(Dainton 1968; House of Commons Science& Technology Committee 2002). For thebasis of their concerns lies in the threatposed by the poor recruitment to thesupply line of scientific and technologicalpersonnel, rather than a concern that oneof the greatest cultural achievements ofWestern society fails to engage the interestof young people.

Nevertheless, during the 1980s, policyarguments (DES 1987; DES/Welsh Office1981; 1982) made both here and in other countries, managed to persuade politicians that science was so central tocontemporary culture that it should be acompulsory element for all children fromage 5 to 16. This process culminated in theimplementation of compulsory ‘science forall’ in the first version of the NationalCurriculum (DES 1989). Science now founditself at the curriculum high table (Houseof Commons Science & TechnologyCommittee 2002; Osborne & Collins 2000)alongside mathematics and English. Yetthis structural change had beenundertaken without any explicitconsideration of the aims and values ofscience education. The model of scientifictraining that had been reasonably wellsuited to the minority who chose tocontinue with science post-14 of their own accord was, overnight, imposed on all children.

Arguably, however, the only justification fora requirement for all children to studyscience can be if the science curriculumoffers something that is of universal valueto all children. The failure to consider whatmight be appropriate to their needs laidthe seeds for the failings and discontentsof the next decade.

Another contextual factor that has driventhe shape and nature of science education,and which has arguably undermined itsquality, has been the development of asystem of measuring the performance ofschools through their examination results.The current system, which emphasisespencil and paper tests, gives pre-eminenceto that which can be easily assessed –essentially students’ knowledge of thecontent of science. However, as has beenpointed out, when an indicator is selectedfor its ability to represent the quality of theservice, and then used as the sole index ofquality, the manipulability of theseindicators destroys the relationshipbetween the indicator and the indicated(Wiliam 1999). In short, the high stakesnature of the assessment distorts thenature, and quality, of the experience thatis offered to pupils. Teachers feel underpressure to deliver the curriculum, and asa corollary over-emphasise content overprocess, removing or minimisingopportunities to discuss issues raised bystudents or explore the more marginal butpotentially interesting parts of thecurriculum. The consequence is thattesting, rather than being an integralcomponent of science education with abenign effect on pedagogy has, instead,begun to have a malign effect on theteaching of science (Hacker & Rowe 1997;Wadsworth 2000).

A particular problem confronting thescience curriculum has been therequirement to both undertake practicalwork and assess students’ competenceand skill in this domain. The first versionof the National Curriculum embodied amodel of scientific enquiry that, in the lightof contemporary scholarship, was far toolimited and restrictive. As Donnelly et al(1999) argued:

9

science, one of the greatestculturalachievements ofWestern society,fails to engagethe interest ofyoung people

“The central elements of the model ofscience embedded in the 1991 Order aredescriptive headings and quasi-algorithmicprotocols. Professional scientists, or thosewho actually do experimental work, nodoubt undertake activities which could becalled 'hypothesising', 'observation' and soon. No doubt they also make use ofvariable handling schemes of variouskinds. But there is nothing about suchapproaches which is specific to science,and thus explanatory of its power.Characterising the practice of naturalscience requires an altogether more com-plex framework, if indeed it can be done.”

Such then is a brief picture of scienceeducation and some of its discontents atthe turn of the millennium. Some of thedissatisfactions voiced in this account have emerged from the increasingunderstanding of science and its practices,which is emerging from the burgeoningbody of scholarship in the field known asscience studies. It is to this research weshall now turn in order to explore itsimplications for the teaching of science insecondary schools.

A CONTEMPORARY PICTURE OF SCIENCE

In contrast to the picture commonlypresented in school science, the reality isthat there is no singular method inscience. A fundamental division existsbetween those working in the exactsciences of physics, chemistry, and tosome extent biology, where thehypothetico-deductive methodpredominates, and where the aim is todevelop explanatory models of the physicaland biological world, and those scienceswhich are attempting a historical

reconstruction of the past such asevolutionary biology, cosmology and theEarth sciences (Rudolph 2000). The goal ofthese sciences, in contrast, is theconstruction of a set of chronologicalsequences of past natural occurrences.The immediate goal is not the developmentof a model, but rather the establishment ofa reliable record of what has occurred andwhen. At a more detailed level, themethods of the paleontologist and thenuclear physicist are as different as chalkand cheese, sharing in common only acommitment to evidence as a means ofresolving disputes. And, moreover, asNorris (1997) has pointed out, “merelyconsidering the mathematical tools thatare available for data analysis immediatelyputs the study of method beyond what islearnable in a lifetime”.

The other transformation of ourunderstanding of science that hasoccurred in the past four decades is aconsequence of the work of historians,philosophers and, in particular,sociologists of science. 40 years ago, thelast lingering remnants of logicalpositivism – essentially the view thatscience was a set of logically deduciblestatements derived from observableentities – still held a strong influencewithin the scientific community. However,the work of Popper (1959), who argued thattheories were believed not becauseexperiments confirmed them but becausethey survived simply through scientistsfailing to falsify them, began to changeboth scientists’ and the wider public’sunderstanding of science. The realtransformation in our understanding ofscience came with the work of Kuhn whoargued that the work of scientists was acultural product. In essence, scientistswere portrayed as working in paradigms

10

SECTION 1


where ideas were so radically different asto be incommensurable. Every so often,the thinking of scientists would undergo aparadigm shift. Kuhn’s essentialcontribution was to highlight that sciencewas not the disinterested study of thenatural world, as scientists would have it,but that science was indistinguishablefrom all other cultural activities consistingof a set of social actors embedded in abody of social networks and governed bysets of implicit and explicit rules. Onceperceived this way, Kuhn’s work openedthe floodgates to the sociologists to studyscience in much the same way that suchlenses had been applied to other socialactivities (Bloor 1976; Collins & Pinch1993; Gross 1996; Latour & Woolgar 1986;Pickering 1984; Taylor 1996; Traweek1988). The view of science that they offeredwas radical and contentious – at its mostextreme some researchers argued thatscientific knowledge was socially ratherthan objectively determined (Gross & Levitt1994). This led to an acrimonious debatethat at its height in the mid 1990s wascharacterised as the ‘science wars’. Now that the dust has begun to settle, theoutcome is one where the socialdimension of science is clearly recognised.Science is a cultural activity, albeit animportant one, which is governed by a setof structures and agencies that have well-defined mechanisms for inducting andaccrediting its members (such as theRoyal Society) and for communicating andrecognising new knowledge claimsadvanced by its members (such as peerreview). This is not to suggest that scienceis a social construct but merely torecognise the social dimension in theconstruction of scientific knowledge.

Historical and sociological studies showthat such aspects are particularly salient

for science-in-the-making. This last pointis particularly important, as most of thepolitical and moral dilemmas posed bycontemporary science are a product of theuncertainties surrounding new scientificknowledge – eg the mechanism for thetransmission of BSE, the effects of GMcrops on the environment or the long-termimpact of mobile phones. Steve Fuller(1997), a prominent sociologist, goesfurther to argue “that most of what non-scientists need to know in order to makeinformed public judgments about sciencefall under the rubric of history, philosophy,and sociology of science, rather than thetechnical content of scientific subjects.”Given that school science education all butignores this dimension of science, such aperspective offers a different vision of theaims and function of science education. What then are the differing functions andpurposes of science education?

THE PURPOSES OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

Broadly speaking, there are fourarguments for the purposes of scienceeducation which can be found in theliterature (Layton 1973; Millar 1996; Milner1986; Thomas & Durant 1987). These arecalled the utilitarian argument, theeconomic argument, the democraticargument and the cultural argument.

The utilitarian argumentThis is the view that learners mightbenefit, in a practical sense, from learningscience – that is that scientific knowledgeenables them to wire a plug or fix theircar; that a scientific training develops a‘scientific attitude of mind’, a rationalmode of thought, or a practical problem-

11

the political andmoral dilemmasposed bycontemporaryscience are aproduct of theuncertaintiessurrounding new scientificknowledge

solving ability that is unique to science andessential for improving the individual’sability to cope with everyday life. It is alsoclaimed that science trains powers ofobservation, providing an ability to seepatterns in the plethora of data thatconfront us in everyday life. Sucharguments may well resonate with thereader — they are after all the stock-in-trade responses that are part of theculture of science teaching. Sadly,however, they do not stand up to closeexamination.

First, there is little evidence that scientistsare any more or less rational than the restof humanity. As Millar (1996) argues,“there is no evidence that physicists havefewer road accidents because theyunderstand Newton’s laws of motion, orthat they insulate their houses betterbecause they understand the laws ofthermodynamics.” Second, the irony ofliving in a technologically advanced societyis that we become less dependent onscientific knowledge, for the increasingsophistication of contemporary artefactsmakes their functional failure onlyremediable by the expert, whilstsimultaneously their use and operation issimplified to a level that requires onlyminimal skill. Electrical appliances comewith plugs pre-wired whilst washingmachines, computers, video recorders, etcrequire little more than intuition for theirsensible use. Even in contexts where youmight think that scientific knowledgewould be useful, such as the regulation ofpersonal diet, recent research on pupils’choice of foods shows that it bears nocorrelation to their knowledge of whatconstitutes a healthy diet (Merron & Lock 1998).

The inevitable conclusion to be drawn from such work is that a utilitarianargument for knowledge is open tochallenge on a number of fronts. In short,an argument that does not justify science’sclaim to such a large slice of preciouscurriculum time.

The economic argumentFrom this perspective, school scienceprovides a pre-professional training andacts essentially as a sieve for selecting thechosen few who will enter academicscience, or follow courses of vocationaltraining. The ‘wastage’ is justified by thefact that the majority will ultimately benefitfrom the material gains that the chosenfew will provide. The data on the skills andproficiencies needed for the world of work,however, raises some concerns with thisargument. In the most systematic andcomprehensive analysis of what scientistsor scientifically-based professionals do inthe UK, carried out by the Council ofScience and Technology Institutes (1993),46 occupations where science was a mainpart of the job (such as a medicaltechnician), or a critical part of their job(such as a nurse) were itemised. Some 2.7million people fell into these categories, afigure which represents only 12% of the UKwork force. A further million people havetheir work enhanced or aided by aknowledge of science and technology.Coles (1998) estimates that the needs ofthis group represents, at most, a further16% of the total UK workforce.

Coles’ analysis of scientists and their work,their job specifications and other researchsummarises the important components ofscientific knowledge and skills needed foremployment as:

12

there is littleevidence that

scientists are any more or

less rational thanthe rest ofhumanity

SECTION 1


• general skills

• knowledge of explanatory concepts

• scientific skills:

– application of explanatory concepts

– concepts of evidence

– manipulation of equipment

• habits of mind:

– analytical thinking

• knowledge of the context of scientific work.

Coles’ data, collected from interviews witha range of 68 practising scientists,suggests that a knowledge of science isonly one component amongst many thatare needed for the world of work.Furthermore, his data shows thatknowledge that they do need is quitespecific to the context in which they areworking. The scientists in this research, incontrast to the need for specific contentknowledge, stressed the importance of theskills of data analysis and interpretation;and general attributes such as the capacityto work in a team and an ability tocommunicate fluently, both in the writtenword and orally.

Yet these are aspects which are currentlyundervalued by contemporary practice inscience education. Baldly stated, it wouldsuggest that even our future scientistswould be better prepared by a curriculumthat reduced its factual emphasis andcovered less but uncovered more of what itmeans to practice science. Coles’ findingssuggest that the skills developed byopportunities to conduct investigativepractical work, such as that required in theUK – the ability to interpret, present andevaluate evidence, the ability to manipulateequipment, and an awareness of the

scientific approach to problems – areoutcomes which are to be valued as muchas any knowledge of the ‘facts’ of science.

The cultural argumentThere is an argument that science is oneof the great achievements of our culture –a shared heritage that forms the backdropto the language and discourse thatpermeate our media, conversations anddaily life (Cossons 1993; Millar 1996). In acontemporary context, where science andtechnology issues increasingly permeatethe media (Pellechia 1997), this is a strongargument, succinctly summarised byCossons. Essentially this view wouldcontend that the distinguishing feature ofmodern Western societies is its scientificand technological knowledge base which,arguably, is the most significant feature ofour culture. And, in order to decode thatculture and enrich our participation –including protest and rejection – anappreciation/understanding of science is desirable.

The implication of such a view is thatscience education should be more of acourse in the appreciation of science,developing an understanding not only ofwhat it means to do science, but of what ahard-fought struggle and greatachievement such knowledge represents.However, understanding the culture ofscience requires some science history,science ethics, science argument andscientific controversy — with moreemphasis on the human dimension andless emphasis on science as a body ofreified knowledge. In short, a reduction ofthe factual emphasis with more emphasison the broad ‘explanatory themes’ thatscience offers and the development of abetter understanding of a range of ‘ideas-about-science’ (Millar & Osborne 1998).

13

the ability tointerpret,present andevaluateevidence, theability tomanipulateequipment, andan awareness ofthe scientificapproach toproblems are to be valued

The democratic argumentThe essence of this argument is that thepolitical and moral dilemmas posed bycontemporary society are increasingly of ascientific nature. For instance, do we allowcloning of human beings? Should weprevent the sale of British beef? Should weallow electricity to be generated by nuclearpower plants? Participation in such debaterequires some knowledge of science andits social practices. However, asdisciplinary knowledge becomesincreasingly specialised and fragmented,we become ever more reliant on expertise.Social systems such as hospitals, railways,and air travel gain a complexity beyond thecomprehension of any individual. Consider,for instance, the number of individuals andsystems involved in ensuring the safe flightof one aircraft between London and Paris.In such a context, trust in expert systemsand their regulatory bodies is an essentialrequirement in our faith that they willfunction effectively (Giddens 1990).Worryingly, though, the increasing relianceon expertise undermines a basic tenet ofdemocratic societies that all citizensshould be able to participate in the processof decision making. Yet, this is only likely ifindividuals have at least a basicunderstanding of the underlying science,and can engage both critically andreflectively in a public debate. As theEuropean Commission (1995) has argued:

“Clearly this does not mean turningeveryone into a scientific expert, butenabling them to fulfill an enlightened rolein making choices, which affect theirenvironment and to understand in broadterms the social implications of debatesbetween experts.” (p28)

Most contemporary scholarship wouldargue that public debate about socio-

scientific issues would benefit if our futurecitizens held a more critical attitudetowards science (Fuller 1998; Irwin 1995;Norris 1997) – essentially one which,whilst acknowledging the strengths ofscience, also recognised its limitations andideological commitments. However, it isdifficult to see how this can be done by ascience education which offers no chanceto develop an understanding of howscientists work, that fails to explore how itis decided that any piece of scientificresearch is ‘good’ science, and which, incontrast to the controversy and uncertaintythat surrounds much contemporaryscientific research, offers a picture ofscience as a body of knowledge which is“unequivocal, uncontested andunquestioned” (Claxton 1997).

SCIENCE EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY?

Faced with these competing functions,science education is effectively caughtbetween a rock and a hard place, neitherfulfilling the task of educating the futurescientist nor the future citizen very well(House of Commons Science & TechnologyCommittee 2002). What kind of scienceeducation would be more appropriate tothe diverse needs of its students and theexpectations of society?

The radical view advanced in the influentialreport, Beyond 2000: Science Education forthe Future, was that the needs of themajority, who will not continue with formalscience education post-16, must beforemost in formulating a curriculum. For the majority of young people, the 5-16 science curriculum will be an end-in-itself, which must provide both a good basis for lifelong learning and a

14

SECTION 1


understandingthe culture of

science requiressome science

history, scienceethics, scienceargument and

scientificcontroversy

preparation for life in a modern democracy– essentially a course which aims todevelop ‘scientific literacy’. Its content and structure must be justified in theseterms, and not as a preparation forfurther, more advanced study.

This position is radical as, so far, all schoolscience curricula have been dominated bythe needs of the scientific community.Thus the content of science A-levels hasbeen determined by the needs of universityundergraduate courses and, likewise, thecontent of GCSE has been determined bythe requirements of A-level. Whilst it isworth noting that the UK system is quitesuccessful at this form of education,achieving high rankings on both the recentTIMSS (Beaton et al 1996) and PISA(Harlen 1999) international comparisons ofachievement in school science, thesubstance of the case against the statusquo is that this form of education is notappropriate to the needs of the majority.

Nevertheless, school science does need tocater for those young people who chooseto pursue the formal study of sciencebeyond age 16. Meeting the heterogeneousneeds of young people requires a choiceamongst science curricula, as it does forother personal and socially valuablechoices and interests, rather than a one-size fits all homogeneous offering. Inshort, the mantra of the science educationcommunity ‘science for all’ does not meanone science for all.

What kind of education would help ourfuture citizen to decide, for instance,whether cloning of human cells should bepermitted? Gee (1996) argues thatbecoming ‘literate’ means becomingknowledgeable and familiar with thediscourse of the discipline. That is the“words, actions, values and beliefs of

scientists”, their common goals andactivities and how they act, talk, andcommunicate. Such knowledge has to beacquired through exposure to the practicesof scientists and explicitly taught so thatchildren can become critically reflective.Rather as learning a language requireschildren to develop a knowledge of theform, grammar and vocabulary, sobecoming scientifically literate wouldrequire a knowledge of science’s majorexplanatory themes, the reasons for beliefin at least some of its content and, inparticular, its uses and abuses.

The articulation of these ideas have beendeveloped first in the AS course Sciencefor Public Understanding (AQA 1999) andits associated textbook (Hunt & Millar2000). At the time of writing, it is thiscourse which is likely to form theframework for the new GCSE ‘21st Century Science’ (further details of which can befound on http:// www.21stcenturyscience.org/home/) which will be offered initially asa pilot in 2003, and then universally to allschools in 2005. Contrary to reports in thepress, this does not mean that it will becompulsory, but merely one optionamongst several. Hence separate GCSEsin the sciences will still be available as willdouble science GCSEs. This innovativecourse includes a single GCSE core aimedat providing students with a ‘toolkit’ ofknowledge to help them make sense of themodern world.

The AS course consists of two basiccomponents – a set of ideas about scienceand a set of science explanations whichare taught through a set of teaching topics.Fig 1 shows how these are interrelated. The science explanations, which are themajor explanatory components underlyingmuch of science are:

15

future citizensshould hold amore criticalattitude towardsscience

• the particle model of chemical reactions

• the model of the atom

• radioactivity

• the radiation model of action at a distance

• the field model of action at a distance

• the scale, origin and future of the universe

• energy: its transfer, conservation and dissipation

• cells as the basic unit of living things

• the germ model of disease

• the gene model of inheritance

• the theory of evolution by natural selection

• the interdependence of living species.

Whilst such a list is open to contention, forinstance there is no treatment of the EarthSciences, it represents a list of the broadthemes that hopefully a young personwould carry away from their experience ofschool science.

The ‘Ideas-about-Science’ componentconsists of four sub-components which,because of their relative unfamiliarity, are listed in more detail in Table 1. Evidence that it is an understanding ofthese aspects of the processes andpractices of science that matter comesfrom a series of studies conducted with thepublic in different contexts, eg sheepfarmers resolving how to deal with fieldcontaminated from the fallout fromChernobyl (Wynne 1996); parents ofDown’s syndrome children dealing with

16

the mantra ofthe science

educationcommunity

‘science for all’does not mean

one science for all

Fig 1: Diagram showing relationship between the teaching topics and the two majorthemes of the Science for Public Understanding course – Science Explanations andIdeas-about-Science

ScienceExplanations

Cells

Germtheory

Genemodel

Particle model

Radiation model

etc

TeachingTopics

Infectious diseases

Health risks

Genetic diseases

Fuels and the global environment

etc

Ideas-about-Science

Data and explanations

Social influences on S&T

Risk and risk assessment

Causal links

Decisions about S&T

etc

SECTION 1


the doctors (Layton et al 1993); thecommunity around Sellafield and theirattempts to understand the dangers posedby radiation (Layton et al 1993). Much ofthe implications of this work has beenwell-articulated by Irwin (1995) in his bookCitizen Science. Further evidence comesfrom interview studies conducted withscientists and science educators by Abd-el-Khalick and Lederman (2000), and aDelphi study undertaken by Osborne et al(2001). All of these latter studies show thatthere is consensual agreement that whatmight be termed a ‘vulgarised’ account ofthe nature of science should form part ofthe compulsory school science curriculum.

An evaluation of the AS Science for PublicUnderstanding Course conducted byOsborne et al (2002) has shown that thecourse has been successful in attracting

more girls than boys – a remarkable featfor a course, which contains a largecomponent of physical science – and thatoverwhelmingly students enjoy the course.This can be seen a considerableachievement in the light of the strongnegative reaction to much of GCSE science(House of Commons Science & TechnologyCommittee 2002; Osborne & Collins 2000).However, the course poses significantpedagogical challenges for many teachers,demanding a more extensive knowledgebase and requiring the use of unfamiliartechniques such as the management ofsmall group discussion.

Thus, science education in the UK standspoised to make the second fundamentalchange in its nature. Having won the battlethat science education should be acompulsory element of all children’s

17

the new AS courseattracted more girls than boys

Theme Details

Data and The idea that any measurement always has an element ofExplanations uncertainty associated with it and that confidence is increased

with repetition and replication.

The idea that any experiment requires the identification andcontrol of variables.

That explanations require the use of creative thought andinvention to identify what are underlying causal relationshipsbetween variables. Such explanations are often based on modelsthat cannot be observed.

That the goal of science is the elimination of alternativeexplanations to achieve a single, consensually agreed account.However, data shows only that a single explanation is false notthat it is correct. Nevertheless, our confidence in any explanationincreases if it offers predictions which are shown to be true.

All new explanations must undergo a process of critical scrutinyand peer review before gaining wider acceptance.

Table 1: The components of ‘Ideas-about-Science’

18

Theme Details

Social Recognise that the focus of much research is influenced by theInfluences on concerns and interests of society and the availability of funding.

That scientists’ views and ideas may be influenced by their owninterests and commitments.

That the personal status of scientists and their standing in thefield is a factor which, wisely or not, is often used in thejudgement of their views and ideas.

Causal Links To recognise that many questions of interest do not have simpleor evident causal explanations. Rather, that much valuablescientific work is based on looking for correlations and that sucha relationship does not imply a causal link.

To recognise that confidence in correlational links is dependenton the size of the sample and its selection. Events with very lowfrequency are particularly difficult to explain causally.

To recognise that eliminating causal factors for a correlationallink is highly problematic. Rather that much scientific work relieson the identification of plausible mechanism between factorswhich are correlated.

Risk and Risk To have a knowledge of different ways of expressing risk and anAssessment awareness of the uncertainties associated with risk measurement.

To be aware that there is a variety of factors which impinge on people’s assessment of risk.

That risk assessment is central to many of the decisions raisedby science in contemporary society.

Decisions about To recognise that whilst the application of science and technologyScience and has made substantial contributions to the quality of life of manyTechnology people, there has been a set of unintended outcomes as well.

That technology draws on science in seeking solutions to humanproblems. However, a distinction should be drawn between whatcan be done and what should be done. Decisions about technicalapplications are subject, therefore, to a host of considerationssuch as technical feasibility, economic cost, environmentalimpact and ethical considerations.

That certain groups or individuals may hold views based ondeeply held religious or political commitments and that thetensions between conflicting views must be recognised andaddressed in considering any issue.

Science andTechnology

SECTION 1


education, it is now attempting to developa curriculum which is appropriate for all.The history of curriculum change isundoubtedly strewn with all kinds of falsetracks and failures. The outcome of thisreform remains to be seen – but it is atleast attempting to steer the ship ofscience education, which behaves morelike a supertanker than a dinghy, in a moremorally justifiable direction.

2 THE POTENTIAL OF ICT INSUPPORTING SCIENCE EDUCATION

THE USE OF ICT TO SUPPORTSCIENCE TEACHING AND LEARNING

So far, this review has attempted tosummarise the differing perspectives ofthe aims of science education and thesignificant choices that have to be made ofwhat and how we teach. Currently, thecurriculum is still driven by the agenda ofthe professional scientific community witha well-established pedagogy which isprimarily based upon transmission ofpredefined, value-free content knowledge.However, the demands for changeembodied in new curricula such as 21stCentury Science will require teachers toadapt and adopt a different set ofpedagogic practices. Its goal of fostering‘scientific literacy’ involves developing aknowledge not only of the broadexplanatory themes of science but also of some of the discourse and practices ofscientists, including the processes oftheory construction, decision making and communication, and the social factors that influence scientists’ work,albeit highly simplified.

Another force for pedagogic change inscience education is the new modes of

enquiry afforded by computer-based toolsand resources, now known collectively as‘Information and CommunicationTechnologies’ (ICT). The advent of thiseducational technology, and its morewidespread access in schools, potentiallyhas an important part to play in re-shapingthe curriculum and pedagogy of science. Inparticular, it offers easy access to a vastarray of internet resources and other newtools and resources that facilitate andextend opportunities for empirical enquiryboth inside and outside the classroom.Thus, in a very real sense, it offersopportunities to dissolve the boundariesthat demarcate school science fromcontemporary science by facilitatingaccess to a wide body of data, such asreal-time air pollution measurements,epidemiological statistics, or providingdirect links to high quality astronomicaltelescopes, and providing ready access to awealth of information about science-in-the-making.

Access to such secondary resources anddata, however, places greater emphasis onthe need to provide a science educationwhich gives pre-eminence, as its ultimategoal, to developing the higher ordercognitive skills of evaluation andinterpretation of evidence requiring criticalassessment of the validity of theories andexplanations. Such an education wouldseek to support and develop students’scientific reasoning, critical reflection andanalytic skills. What, then, is the potentialof using ICT to support and nurture such ascience education? In the followingsections of this review, we now examinethis potential – particularly that envisionedby the current trend in science educationwhich seeks to develop scientific literacy.We also explore the teacher’s role inexploiting this potential, and the outcomes

19

another force for change in scienceeducation is thenew modes ofenquiry affordedby computer-based tools and resources

SECTION 2

THE POTENTIAL OF ICT IN SUPPORTING SCIENCE EDUCATION

so far, concluding with a consideration ofthe implications for further development.

The potential role of ICT intransforming teaching and learningClassroom use of ICT became a statutoryrequirement in all subjects with theintroduction of a National Curriculum in1989. This obligation has been somewhatelaborated with successive curriculumdocuments but its role is described inbroad terms, in the form of tentative notesin the margins of the Science NationalCurriculum (and a very brief outline withinthe recent framework for Key Stage 3science: DfES 2002a). Suggestions for‘opportunities’ in the curriculum include“pupils could use simulation software toinvestigate and model circuits” and “pupilscould use data loggers to investigaterelationships” (DfEE/QCA 1999). Outlineschemes of work produced by theQCA/DfEE (2000) for ages 11-14 providesome further non-statutory suggestionsfor using ICT.

The established model of using ICT tosupport school science assumes aniterative, investigative approach, asembedded in the National Curriculum, andincorporates simultaneous learning aboutscientific theory and process (see Frost et al 1994, for detailed examples ofclassroom activities which exploit ICT in this way).

The main forms of ICT which are relevantto school science activity include:

Tools for data capture, processing and interpretationdata logging systems, data analysissoftware (eg ‘Insight’), databases andspreadsheets (eg ‘Excel’), calculators,graphing tools, modelling environments

Multimedia softwarefor simulation of processes and carryingout ‘virtual experiments’ - CD-Roms, DVDs(eg ‘Science Investigations 1’, ‘ChemistrySet’, ‘Multimedia Library for Science’)

Information systemsCD-Roms (eg ‘Encarta’), internet, intranet

Publishing and presentation tools(eg ‘Word’, ‘PowerPoint’)Digital recording equipment – still andvideo cameras

Computer projection technologyinteractive whiteboards, data projector +screen, external monitor or TV

The first category of tools – those whichcan support practical activities or‘scientific enquiry’ – is currently the mostsignificant form of ICT application forscience teaching and learning (Barton2002). Its centrepiece is the data loggingsystem, comprising a set of sensors orprobes to convert the quantity to bemeasured (eg temperature, light level,humidity, sound, time, position,acceleration, pH, oxygen, current, energy)into a voltage recognisable by thecomputer; an interface to pass informationfrom sensors to computer; and a computerprogram to control the interface andpresentation of data on the screen.Sensors can be used remotely forcollecting data over time from outside thelaboratory, for example for monitoringweather. The versatility of the data loggingsystem means that it can be used within arange of activities to support any of thesubstantive curriculum areas of study (life processes, materials, physicalprocesses) as well as the processes of scientific enquiry.

20

SECTION 2


Data handling tools (generic or task-specific) allow pupils to tabulate pre-stored data or that derived from computerlogging or practical experiments; carry outcalculations using built-in formulae; sort,search and graph/chart data; generatenew datasets. Spreadsheets and modellingenvironments are particularly useful forboth static and dynamic modelling ofphysical phenomena; in the first case,changing a variable in the model (egdriver’s reaction time) generates a newoutput (eg vehicle stopping distance), andin the second, an iterative calculationmodels a system (eg harmonic motion) asa function of time, while initial parameters(eg amplitude) can be varied. Specificmodelling environments (eg for exploringgenerational trends in predator-preyrelationships) handle complexmathematical principles more readily thanspreadsheets. Pupils can also use thesetools to predict and test theories,constructing their own models and thenemploying them in their investigations. The latest generation of data loggingsoftware provides a common interface forcomparing logging- and model-generateddata (Rogers 2002b).

Multimedia software may include videoand audio explanatory sequences,animated graphics, tutorials or interactivetasks, slide shows and/or an interactivedatabase/encyclopaedia (simulations mostfrequently concern the solar system, thehuman body, the periodic table andphysical forces). Some contain innovativeanalytic software which renders thesimulated motion interactive andquantifiable; pupils can, therefore,manipulate variables (eg changingtemperature or the mass of a movingobject) or mark points and then processthe data either by calculation or display in

graphical form (see Wellington, in press,for details). Some multimedia CD-Romsalso offer a virtual microscope enablingpupils to see exactly what they should seethrough a real microscope.

Information systems are typically used tosupport conceptual learning in the threesubstantive curriculum areas. Intranetsstoring a limited range of web content on alocal network server are increasingly beingused to provide an information resourcewhich is safer, more quickly accessible andpre-filtered compared to the internet.Word processing can support an iterativeapproach to planning or analysis andpresentation tools can be used to presentfindings of research or investigations inany topic area. A further kind of tool is thecomputer-controlled microscope wherestill, moving or time-lapse images can becaptured, labelled, enlarged etc and usedin conjunction with laboratory or field work(eg for live dissection of a micro-organismsuch as a seed, or analysis of pond life).Increasingly popular are multi-purposedigital still and video cameras. These cansupply images for incorporation inteaching materials/presentations, orexperiments can be recorded by pupilsthemselves. Finally, projection technologyhas become central to science education;access is rapidly increasing and it can beused with any of the other tools for wholeclass interaction – demonstration,lecturing, or collating and discussing classresults. Interactive whiteboards are aspecial case and can encourage new formsof active student participation in scienceactivities, as discussed later on.

Other common modes of using ICT includeusing a single computer or data loggerwith a small group (eg as part of a ‘circus’of rotated activities in the lab or for

21

entering experimental results into aspreadsheet); half a class using a fewmachines (the other half might useconventional resources and compareresults); a whole class using a computersuite or set of portable computers in thelaboratory; and independent use (at homeor in the school library/resource area).Certain learning purposes and resourcelevels clearly lend themselves more tocertain modes of use (Wellington, in press),and use of particular tools is associatedwith certain pupil learning modes, egreceiver or revisor of knowledge, explorerof ideas, creator of reports/presentations(Newton & Rogers 2001, ch3).

Where’s the ‘C’ aspect of ICT in this? Forexample, video conferencing? Or e-mail? Or linking schools/children/scientiststogether to discuss? Or ‘mass’experiments linking numbers of differentcomputers together? There are examplesof these activities, some highlighted below,and they are directly relevant to thearguments in the first section of the review.Drawing on some prominent examples ofrecent research, we now examine how theabove forms of ICT can potentially enhanceboth the practical and theoretical aspectsof science teaching and learning, andexplore the uses of ICT in the schoollaboratory 1. In particular, two recent books– one by Newton and Rogers (2001) and anedited collection by Barton (in press-b) –offer an overview of the field as well asextensive practical guidance to teacherswanting to develop their practice inteaching with ICT. We also make use ofongoing research by the second authorand her colleagues which is concernedwith analysing and documenting effectiveways of using ICT to support subjectteaching at secondary level 2. Inconjunction with the wider research

literature, the findings converge on thefollowing conceptualisation of the potentialcontribution of technology use to scienceteaching and learning (throughout the fiveKey Stages of primary and secondaryschooling).

Expediting and enhancing work production; release fromlaborious processesThe use of ICT, particularly tools for datahandling and graphing, can speed up andeffect working processes, notably the morearduous and routine components. Thisfrees pupils from spending time setting upexperiments, taking complex measure-ments, tabulating data, drawing graphs byhand, and executing multiple or difficultcalculations. It enables rapid plotting ofdiverse variables within a short period, orcollection of and comparison between alarger number of results (includingmerging of results from different classes).Hence it is possible to significantlyincrease the productivity of pupils within asingle lesson and improving the quality of work they produce (Ruthven et al,submitted). Using the versatile softwaretools which are now linked to data loggingis particularly helpful in allowing pupils toexplore and present data in different wayswith a low investment of time and effort(Newton 2000). Such tools freeexperimentation from the time constraintsof the standard one-hour lesson, allowingdata to be collected over several days, oreven several weeks. Interactive computersimulation can help pupils to avoid getting‘bogged down’ with the mechanics ofsimply setting up equipment, for exampleconstructing and testing a circuit wherethe proliferation of wires involved canmake it difficult to see what is happening,and minor faults in physical connectioncan pose a complete impediment.

22

SECTION 2


ICT-supported procedures are not onlyfaster and more efficient, but are alsoconsidered more precise, reliable andaccurate. They yield less ‘messy’ data andillustrate phenomena without the ‘noise’ ofunwanted variables and human error inmeasurement – in contrast with somepractical experiments! Digital still andvideo cameras can offer high qualityimages of fieldwork sites, practicaldemonstrations or experiments. Finally,interactive worksheets can incorporatediagrams and text created in otherapplications. This saves time and improvesaccuracy by removing the need forstudents to copy them by hand beforeusing them for conceptual activities (Hitch 2000). The worksheets can includeautomatic ‘hyperlinks’ allowing rapidaccess to pre-selected information on theinternet or in an encyclopaedic databasesuch as ‘Encarta’. Interactive whiteboardsoffer similar facilities and the ability for theteacher in a whole class situation to moveinstantly between multiple kinds ofprepared resources stored on a singlecomputer or network.

Conflicting opinions arise regardingwhether time for discussion and reflectionupon activity can be easier or moredifficult to find when using ICT, but a ‘timebonus’ is commonly reported. Teachingwith ICT is said to offer more time forteacher interaction and intervention withpupils and greater sharing of class results,permitting more time for pupils to observe,think and analyse rather than being pre-occupied by gathering and processing data(Barton 1997; Finlayson & Rogers 2003).

Thus, in this sense, ICT does create thespace to develop the kinds of analyticalskills demanded of contemporary scienceeducation. Moreover, in conjunction withprompt teacher intervention, real-timedata display can be a powerful stimulus fordiscussion and interpretation, particularlywhere large sample sizes are involved, orcomplex interactions between a number ofvariables may be evident. Real-time datadisplay also enables the teacher todemonstrate instantly the link between anevent and its formal representation. Forexample, the ability to produce graphs ofthe motion of objects as it happensstrengthens the association between the phenomenon and its scientificrepresentation.

To conclude, the use of ICT changes therelative emphasis of scientific skills andthinking; for example, by diminishing themechanical aspects of collecting data andplotting graphs – particularly beneficial forlow ability pupils – while enhancing theuse of graphs for interpreting data,spending more time on observation andfocused discussion, and developinginvestigative and analytic skills (Hennessy1999; McFarlane & Friedler 1998; Rogers,in press-b; Rogers & Wild 1996). Researchalso suggests that using computermodelling and simulation allows learnersto understand and investigate far morecomplex models and processes than theycan in a school laboratory setting (egreview by Cox 2000; Linn 1999; Mellar et al1994).

23

1 See June 2003 issue of School Science Review on the use of ICT in science teaching.2 The findings of a series of departmental group interviews (Hennessy et al, submitted; Ruthven et al, submitted) and

classroom observational case studies (Deaney & Ruthven, in preparation; Hennessy et al 2003) are drawn upon here. Also contributory is a current ESRC-funded project investigating pedagogy for effective use of ICT in science and mathematics.

Increasing currency and scope of reference and experienceUse of ICT, especially the internet, canopen up access to a broader range of up-to-date tools and information resources,and increase the currency and authenticityof schoolwork far beyond that whichtextbooks and other resources can offer. Itallows pupils to relate their work moreclosely to the outside world – to obtain livenews or real data, for example concerningan earthquake. Pupils can even askquestions of ‘real’ scientists, or collaborateor pool results with peers elsewhere.

A topical example of reported use wasaccessing the Roslin Institute websiteduring a research project on the cloning of ‘Dolly’ the sheep. Likewise the TERC Centre in Cambridge, Mass.(www.terc.edu) coordinates a wide range of projects linking schools to eachother and to professional scientists. Aprominent example is the GLOBE project(www.globe.gov) involving 12,000 schoolscollaborating with a community ofscientists to collect, analyse, validate andinterpret shared research data concerningclimate change. Such exploration ofpressing global questions promotesstudents’ awareness of environmentalissues and the Earth as a dynamic system.A further example is the Jason Project(www.jasonproject.org), a series of real-lifeand real-time internet-based scienceexplorations designed for students whocan engage with the work of researchscientists exploring the geology andbiology of dynamic and eco-systemsthroughout the planet.

Contact with wider ideas can extend highability pupils and is perceived to increaseopportunities for learning beyond that

anticipated by the teacher or prescribed bythe curriculum. One recent application, aCD-Rom called ‘Ideas and Evidence’, usesICT to raise pupils’ awareness of theuncertainties which surround theconstruction of scientific knowledge,especially the validity and consequences ofdifferent scientists producing differentresults and interpretations. This tool canbe used to support role play and groupdiscussions of topical social and ethicalissues, including media bias andoversimplification in presenting sciencenews stories (eg concerning health scares such as BSE or mobile phonetransmissions). Tools like this may,therefore, support teachers in rising to thenew pedagogical challenges emerging asthe curriculum begins to shift.

Using ICT can provide access to new formsof data previously unavailable. Data loggingcan offer measurements of transientphenomena, remote and long termmonitoring and increased sensitivity; forexample, it is commonly used to measurethe speed of a moving object by measuringthe time taken to pass through a light gateand combining this with manualmeasurement of its stopping distance.Using ICT further allows teachers andpupils to observe or interact withsimulations, animations or phenomena innovel ways that may be too dangerous,complex or expensive for the schoollaboratory. Use of a data logger canfacilitate otherwise impossibledemonstrations, such as measuringenergy transfer as a hot liquid cools.Digital video capture offers an alternativeto data logging; repeated and slow motionplayback allows phenomena which aredifficult for a whole class to view, or eventsotherwise too slow (eg plant growth) orfast (eg sound waves or the behaviour of

24

ICT may supportteachers in

rising to the new pedagogical

challengesemerging as the

curriculumbegins to shift

SECTION 2


two different masses dropped from thesame height), to be captured. The internetalso offers some unique opportunities forpupils to experience phenomena such asviewing the Earth from a moving satellite.

A particularly accessible and popular wayof exploiting the power of visualrepresentations to develop understanding– particularly of abstract phenomena likeelectricity flow – is the direct use of videoclips from interactive simulation CD-Roms. Examples include ‘seeing’ anelectron going around a nucleus or a whitecell ingesting bacteria, simulating launchof a space shuttle, and rotating a 3D model of molecules and atoms in motion.Another multimedia tool is the ‘InteractiveMicroscope Laboratory’ (Baggott & Nichol1998), which facilitates active investigationof the sub-optical living world (egmeasurement of the heart rate of a waterflea) through simulating the functionality ofadvanced microscopy. Virtual reality ‘field’trips (eg to remote animal habitats) andsurrogate walks (eg through a rainforest)are beginning to offer further possibilitieswhich other local resources cannotprovide. Interactions with virtualphenomena can be repeated as often asnecessary for the learner – impossibleduring a live practical.

Supporting exploration and experimentationThe use of graphing or modelling toolsprovides dynamic, visual representations ofdata collected electronically or otherwise.Like the interactive simulations describedabove, use of these tools offers immediatefeedback to pupils, and introduces a more

experimental, playful style in which trendsare investigated and ideas are tested andrefined. Through providing an immediatelink between an activity and its results, thelikelihood is increased that pupils willrelate the graphical or diagrammaticalrepresentation of relationships to theactivity itself. In particular, the keypedagogical technique of Predict – Observe– Explain 3 is greatly facilitated throughviewing a graph or model on screen soonafter making a prediction.

Rapid data presentation and interactivecomputer models representing a scientificphenomenon or idea not only provideimmediate opportunities for study andanalysis; they can also encourage pupils topose exploratory (“what if…”) questionsand to pursue these by conducting follow-up activities (Barton 1998; Finlayson &Rogers 2003; Newton 2000; Wardle, inpress). Immediate display of experimentalresults in a simple spreadsheet templatecan even guide the course of datacollection through structuring theirsubsequent actions and predictions aboutthe related variables (for instance wheninvestigating heat loss and surfacearea/volume ratios). The facility to overlayseveral graphs can encourage furtherprediction and, where hypotheses need tobe reassessed, more, perhaps differentdata, can be collected and processedquickly. Thus, the provisional, interactiveand dynamic nature of ICT tools such asspreadsheets supports this iterativeapproach to learning (ibid). Anotherexample is the use of simulation softwarefor building and testing circuits. Whereascircuit diagrams on paper are static andgive no feedback, using ICT can enable

25

ICT can provideaccess to newforms of datapreviouslyunavailable

3 This technique is valuable because it forces the student to hypothesise, drawing on their existing knowledge about what they think the outcome of an investigation will be, eg which will fall faster – a penny or a brick). Having observed the phenomenon and the outcome (they both fall at the same rate), it forces them to re-evaluate their own knowledge.

pupils to visualise what happens ifcomponents are connected wrongly andlearn from their mistakes.

Focusing on overarching issuesThe interactive and dynamic nature of toolssuch as simulations, data analysissoftware and graphing technologies can beinfluential in: allowing pupils to visualiseprocesses more clearly and derivequalitative or numeric relationshipsbetween relevant variables; focusingattention on overarching issues; increasingsalience of underlying features ofsituations and abstract concepts, (egcurrent and voltage in the circuit example);helping students to access ideas morequickly and easily, to formulate new ideasand transfer them between contexts. Inparticular, a graph evolving in real timeactually serves to focus pupils’ attention onthe screen and thus on the behaviour ofthe data, especially where it is unexpected(Barton 1998). Contemporary analysissoftware which integrates table, chart,graph and model display allows seamlessinterchange – and hence conceptuallinking – between them (Rogers 2002b).

Thus, computer analytic facilities areadvantageous over manual methods inallowing a more holistic and qualitativeapproach to pupil analysis of trends andrelationships between variables in a graphrather than individual data points (Barton1997). Using ICT to support practicalinvestigation can in fact help pupils toexperience the entire process as holisticand cyclical, whereas time constraints onconventional laboratory work tend toisolate – and hence obscure the linksbetween – planning, practical work, writing up and evaluation (Baggott la Velle et al 2003).

We saw above how use of ICT couldfacilitate or automate subsidiary tasks –typically those involving routine datahandling, calculating and graphing.However, freeing users to give theirattention to more overarching matters isnot an automatic process. In order tounderstand what an experiment is allabout, pupils also need to appreciate thefundamental nature of the proceduresbeing carried out by the computer, forexample so that they grasp that a datalogging activity is using a probe like athermometer, measuring temperatureover time. The pivotal role of the teacher in this is discussed later.

Fostering self-regulated and collaborative learningICT is infinitely more than a surrogatetutor; its use for exploratory andexperimental purposes offers teachers apowerful means of stimulating activelearning and it offers learners moreresponsibility and control. Pupils carryingout research or practical activity using ICTmay work more (but not completely)independently of the teacher. To developthe concepts central to science teachingand to counter intuitive conceptions, pupilsneed to think for themselves.

“Their ideas need to be made explicit andchallenged by new experiences. ICT toolshave great potential to encourage this styleof learning… Software can present manychoices and alternatives to the pupil,providing an interactive experience whichis well suited to individual exploration.”(Rogers, in press-b, p2)

It is worth noting that ‘independence’ doesnot mean pupils working alone. Peercollaboration between students working

26

using ICT tosupport practicalinvestigation can

help pupils toexperience the

entire process asholistic and

cyclical

SECTION 2


together on tasks, sharing their knowledgeand expertise, and producing jointoutcomes is becoming a prevalent modelfor the use of educational technology. Thisis partly because lack of hardwareresources means that machines are oftenshared. However, a growing body ofresearch evidence has accumulated for thecognitive benefits of technology-supportedcollaborative learning (eg O'Malley 1995);teachers too perceive that using ICT offersa stimulus and a medium for discussionbetween pupils. Note, however, thatteachers themselves play a critical role infostering, supporting and sensitively man-aging pupil collaboration as an effectivevehicle for subject learning (Hennessy &Murphy 1999; Scrimshaw 1997).

There are a few examples of where self-regulated use can play a part in actuallystructuring pupil thinking, shaping activityand broadening knowledge. For instance,graphing technology can act as a cognitiveprop, provoking spontaneous investigationsof relationships between variables orbetween numerical data and graphs, whichwould never be worthwhile manually.Another example is the CSILE/KnowledgeForum, a collaborative, networked learningenvironment whose use enabled a scientific‘learning community’ of Canadian primarypupils working in small groups to design,execute and report their own experimentsand research activities, and to generateand engage in depth with meaningfulresearch questions and complex problems– the natural progression of their ideasdetermining the curriculum sequence(Caswell & Bielaczyc 2001; Caswell &Lamon 1999). They also consulted expertscientists, acting not merely as recipientsof their knowledge, but sharing their ownknowledge, theories and predictions, andcritically examining these.

Future development in using ICT withinschool science may perhaps take a similarcollective approach to knowledge building.These examples illustrate how theintroduction of ICT has the potential tochange the way in which scientific inquiryis perceived. When learners using ICTencounter and accept a rebalancing of thebenefits and constraints of inquiry, thistypically results in some modification oftheir investigative strategies. Similarly,existing cultural practices and valuesrealted to inquiry, and the proficiencies ofpupils in regulating their own learning andin exploiting new forms of digitaltechnology, can affect how effectively ICT will be used.

Improving motivation and engagementRelated to all of the above are the well-documented motivational effects of usingICT, which seems to be intrinsically moreinteresting and exciting to pupils thanusing other resources (eg Cox 1997;Deaney et al, in press). ICT offers theopportunity to greatly enhance the qualityof presentation, incorporating the use ofmovement, light, sound and colour ratherthan static text and images, which isattractive and more authentic. Above all,using ICT can increase pupils’ persistenceand participation through enhancing theappeal of laboratory activity, not only interms of novelty and variety, but byproviding immediate, accurate results andreducing the laboriousness of work. Pupilsare also observed to be more motivated toparticipate in science activity anddiscussion when using tools such asinteractive whiteboards, modelling andsimulations which permit activeengagement and offer pupils a degree ofcontrol over their own learning.

27

‘independence’does not mean pupils workingalone

ICT USE AND PEDAGOGY 4 – AN INEXTRICABLE LINK

Just as when using any other tool, certainfeatures of the socio-cultural setting inwhich ICT is used are highly influential 5.These diverse influences include thenature and purpose of the activity, age and ability of pupils, their degree ofparticipation, curriculum requirements,wider educational and political agendas,etc. Teachers’ established pedagogicapproaches need to adapt accordingly. The teacher plays a critical role in creatingthe conditions conducive for learningthrough selecting and evaluatingappropriate technological resources anddesigning, structuring, sequencing,supporting and monitoring learningactivities using ICT (eg Scrimshaw 1993;Selinger 2001). It is that role which isexplored in this section.

The first issue to be tackled is whether touse ICT at all. There is a shared concernamong educators that use of ICT in theteaching and learning of any subject needsto be appropriate, discerning and orientedtowards the learning goals of the subjectitself 6. Teachers are understandablyresistant to the notion of ‘bolting on’ ICT tothe curriculum or using it simply becauseit is available or its use is encouraged orexpected. Rather, they perceive thatselective use, which ‘adds value’ tolearning activities, is essential.

Potential software needs to be evaluatedfor the suitability of its content to thescience curriculum, its intended level ofuse, and scope for differentiation accordingto pupils’ needs. Quality of video clips andanimations, and their potential formisleading pupils, need to be assessed.According to Rogers (in press-b), if thelearning objective lies in conceptualdevelopment, the software should supportinvestigative activity and foster analyticaland divergent thinking. Wellington (inpress) extends this role to includeencouraging problem solving, modelling,classifying, sorting, questioning, patternfinding, data exploring, researching,groupwork and out of class work.

A critical constraint on adoption of ICT isthat it must fit with teachers’ existingconceptions of pedagogy. The interimreport of a major British evaluation,ImpaCT2 7, indicated that ‘relatively fewteachers are integrating ICT into subjectteaching in a way that motivates pupils andenriches learning or stimulates higher-level thinking and reasoning’ (p14). Asother studies have detected, these fewtended to be teachers who already had an innovative pedagogic outlook.Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001), and aprominent study of primary teachers byMoseley et al (1999), found that teacherschoose ICT applications, activities andapproaches to fit their own perspectives on teaching and learning. Rogers (2002a)observed that limited resources (an oft

28

futuredevelopments inusing ICT within

school sciencemay take a

collectiveapproach toknowledge

building

4 The term ‘pedagogy’ denotes the complex relations between teacher, learning context, subject knowledge, purposes, teacher’s view of enhancing learning, selection of learning and assessment activities, learning about learning, and learner characteristics such as age and knowledge (Watkins & Mortimore, 1999).

5 Thus research which aims to isolate the role of ICT in raising attainment (on standardised assessment measures) is not reviewed here; McFarlane (2001) discusses the complex issues involved in this endeavour.

6 For example, the framework for Key Stage 3 science provides a checklist for appropriate use (DfES 2002a, p47). 7 ImpaCT2 is a DFES/Becta large-scale longitudinal study of ICT and student attainment across the curriculum:

www.becta.org.uk/impact2.

SECTION 2


cited complaint) were less of an obstacle toteachers’ use of ICT than the scienceteachers’ reluctance to abandon theirexisting pedagogy.

Before they will use ICT, teachers have tofirst recognise the potential benefits ofcomputer-supported science teaching andlearning, and its specific role in meetingtheir classroom aspirations (Barton, inpress-a). Successful integration of ICTdepends then on development of anappropriate pedagogy – which is bestbegun with incorporation and adaptationwithin teachers’ conventional practice, andthen going beyond it. The collegialityevident in science departments stronglyinfluences individual teachers’ develop-ment, and colleagues who exemplify andshare good pedagogy in teaching with ICTmake a valuable contribution (Finlayson etal 2002). However, evidence would suggestthat only if ICT provides activities (ratherthan mere ‘opportunities’) with a clear andconcrete curriculum focus which supportand enhance learning will its use beinitially adopted and integrated intodepartmental schemes of work and allteachers’ lessons.

Using ICT to support self-regulatedlearning does not diminish the importanceof the science teacher, but it clearlychallenges their beliefs to some extent. Amajor constraint is prevailing classroompractice which clashes with the culture ofstudent exploration, collaboration, debateand interactivity within which muchtechnology-supported activity is said totake place (Schofield 1995). For instance,Ruthven et al (submitted) noted a markedlack of reference by science teachers totrialling and refinement of ideas with ICT(compared to English and mathematicsteachers). This may be a consequence of

their tendencies both to pre-structureinvestigations (seeking a single outcomesuch as verification of a knownrelationship) and to treat writing as ameans of recording results rather thanforming or evaluating ideas. It reflects aculture uneasy with ‘uncertainty’, and apedagogy correspondingly emphasisingcoverage of content over development ofreasoning (Donnelly 1999). It also reflects atendency toward a didactic, whole classteaching approach which may simplysubsume the computer (and/or interactivewhiteboard) by using it mainly fordemonstration. The outcome is that, so far,the potential for using ICT to supportexploration and experimentation has notbeen exploited by the majority of teachers.

Current pedagogy does not drawextensively on the well-establishedliterature on pupils’ prior conceptions andexperiences (Driver et al 1985; Osborne1985), nor on the more recent literature onthe significance of small group discussionto learning (Kuhn 1993; Mercer & Wegerif1999). Nor does it appreciate theimportance of making prior conceptionsand implicit reasoning explicit so as tohighlight any inconsistency – either withsimulated phenomena or betweenconflicting theories, which can co-existwithin children’s own minds. In such acontext, computer simulations do needthen to present viable and convincingalternatives to children’s everyday beliefs if their thinking is to move on (Hennessy et al 1995).

In summary, using ICT in limited andconstrained ways can curtail the potentialoffered by ICT for learning science anddeveloping the skills required bycontemporary curricula. To progress,teachers need not only to evaluate

29

computersimulationsneed to presentviable andconvincingalternatives to children’severyday beliefs

critically the benefits of using ICT – bothbeforehand and afterwards – but they needdeliberate strategies to mediate theinteractions between pupils andtechnology; these they are beginning todevelop, as elaborated in what follows.

Structuring activity and supportingactive, reflective learning Learners and teachers using ICT are oftenportrayed as creators, collaborators anddecision makers (Loveless et al 2001), yetoverly mechanical uses of ICT can obstructthe process of learning. The automaticityof processes previously carried out by handwhich ICT offers can hinder reflection,analysis and understanding of theunderlying scientific processes. Scienceteachers are concerned, for example, thatpupils may use technology to producemany different kinds of graphs and barcharts, or to collect data automatically,without actually understanding what isrepresented.

The term ‘interactive’ (commonly appliedto internet, CD-Roms, DVD) needs aparticular note of caution. Digitaltechnology has rendered many forms ofinformation more provisional and fluid, ieopen to intervention and improvement bylearners. However some technologiesactually provide little opportunity forexploration and manipulation of underlyingmodels. Even those that provide more canbe used to reinforce existing didacticapproaches (teacher as knowledgeprovider) and perpetuate laborious orroutinised learning (Ellis 2001).

Genuine interactivity requires activelearner contribution and engagement, iean element of reflection on choices andtheir effects, and it may include prediction,

trial and evaluation (Rogers, in press-b).‘Open’ simulations and modelling softwaresupport this engagement by offeringstudents significant choices of variablesand types of data generation (within anexperimental range or with a randomisedelement), whereas ‘closed’ simulationsconcentrate on concept developmentthrough demonstrating an idealisedsystem (McFarlane & Sakellariou 2002).They absolve the student from anyresponsibility for the investigative aspects– planning, design, data collection and display.

Although development of pupils’investigative skills is a key objective ofscience activity, use of software such asinteractive simulations here is in itsinfancy. There are some exceptions whichoffer pupils a significant degree of controlin manipulating variables themselves. For instance, ‘open’ genetics simulationsoftware can be used to substitute forcomplex selective breeding operations overseveral generations. Multimediasimulations clearly illustrate the effects ofprocesses such as dissolving, diffusion orbonding atoms and can foster explorationof rates of reaction, or properties of solids,liquids and gases. Many simulation andmodelling activities involve the learner‘exploring’ someone else’s ideas, however,rather than expressing or evaluating theirown (Mellar & Bliss 1994).

Simulations, models and virtualexperiments are a particular danger zonein that they represent ‘cleaned-up’versions of the complex and messy realworld. These are helpful in focusingattention on particular abstract conceptsor isolating variables, which are normallycombined. However there is someindication that pupils attribute a great deal

30

the teacher'srole is critical in

structuring tasksand interventions

in ways whichprompt pupils

using ICT tothink aboutunderlying

concepts andrelationships

SECTION 2


of authority to the computer and maydevelop misconceptions by takinganimations and images of abstractconcepts too literally (Wellington, in press).A key example is the creation of africtionless virtual world; while this can bepowerful in many ways, reflection uponexperience of both the natural world andthe simulation is an essential pre-cursorto exploring pupils’ conceptual difficultiesand dealing with their general disbelief insimulations (Hennessy & O'Shea 1993).Teacher intervention in this and similarcontexts needs to investigate andchallenge pupils’ own ideas, and usediscussion to move them towards aconsensual model of understanding (ibid,Wardle, in press).

More generally, the teacher’s role iscritical in structuring tasks andinterventions in ways which prompt pupilsusing ICT to think about underlyingconcepts and relationships. For example,pupils using graphing software first needto understand the nature of the data andhow to make an appropriate choice ofgraph type from those on offer. Then theycan appreciate the significance of graphshape, describe the behaviour of variables,compare sets of data, make predictions,and so on. With simulated experimentsand measuring tools, they need a rationalefor purposeful investigations, controllingvariables, fair testing and so on. Pupilswill, ideally, then move on to planning theirown tasks and asking their own questions(Rogers, in press-b). With data logging, it isimportant to encourage pupils to remainactive while the machine is collecting data,using the ‘time bonus’ purposefully tothink critically about and discuss theexperiment in more depth. The teacher canprobe pupils about issues such as whetherit is a fair test, what they expect to happen,

what controls would be useful, etc.(Newton 2000).

The teacher’s mediating role is alsoimportant in the context of pupils’interactions with multimedia simulationsof scientific processes, especially wherethese are ‘closed’. The following accountillustrates how a skilful teacher exploitsthe power of a biology simulation, using itto stimulate questioning for investigationand requiring pupils to discuss and reflecton the underlying processes in somedepth:

“You can actually… see a red blood cellsqueezing its way through a capillary andsee it in action, and you can discuss whatis actually happening here, what is it goingthrough… why not just go through thebiggest route, what's the reason that thered blood cells have to be routed throughthese capillaries? What's it doing as youare watching it that you can't see? What'sbeing picked up? What liquid is it in?”(From Hennessy et al, submitted)

Such experiences, coupled with enoughtime for discussion, analysis and reflection,provide valuable opportunities forenriching learning.

Retaining some use of manual processesis a necessary strategy for tacklingperceived problems concerning theautomaticity of some forms of ICT (and formeeting examination needs). Examplesfrom teacher reports include using anordinary thermometer and drawing graphsand lines of ‘best fit’ by hand – althoughwell known conceptual and physicaldifficulties in drawing these may bothreflect and reinforce misconceptions sinceinaccurate representations can lead toerroneous interpretations (Barton 1997;

31

Hennessy 1999). Using a manual system ofdata recording can be perceived asallowing pupils to see and understandwhat is going on more easily. However,experience shows that manual datarecording can also be a mechanicalprocess (Barton 1998). Whether it is withICT or by hand, the teacher’s skill inconstructing tasks and makinginterventions which highlight the meaning underlying the data collected is the crucial factor.

Developing an investigative approachAs pupils’ roles become more autonomous,teachers need to decrease their overtdirection and instead facilitate informationfinding and development of understanding,for example by providing sufficientopportunities for experimentation. Theteacher role is emerging as one ofprompting pupils with the aim ofencouraging them to reason forthemselves, to ask lots of questions aboutthe data, and to find their own solutionsand interpretations, rather than givingthese directly. Rogers & Wild (1996, p143)suggest that:

“Pupils might be encouraged to comparesets of data; they can look at each other’sgraphs, discuss the differences andsimilarities or compare their graph withthat of sample data. Hopefully… they mighttake a broader view of what constitutesrelevant and useful information.”

Rogers (in press-b) points out that pupilsusing an investigative approach to practicalscience already need ‘to question, plan,design, decide, predict, observe, measure,

record, draw conclusions and generallythink for themselves’. Complementary tothese investigative pupil skills arefacilitatory teacher strategies; the mosteffective strategies highlighted by Millar etal in the EPSE study 8 were asking openquestions, supporting small groupdiscussion of ideas and evidence, andfocusing on ‘how’ rather than ‘what’ weknow. These kinds of pupil and teacherskills are just as pertinent and importantwhen using ICT, but crucial interactionsand lesson aims can be undermined bytechnical problems with equipment.Nevertheless, technological advances inboth hardware and software have widenedaccess to ICT and reduced the level ofoperational skill required. Furthermore,user-friendliness and connectivity areexpected to improve further in future sothat developing the necessary operationalskills should no longer hinder subjectlearning (Rogers, in press-a). However,observation indicates that technicaldifficulties and time-consumingtroubleshooting remain a reality forteachers – and for many, a significantimpediment to using ICT.

In such a context, the need for constructivelearning-focused interventions (as opposedto technology focused) becomes even moreapparent, and according to Rogers, theseinclude:

• building on what pupils have learnt already

• prompting pupils to make links betweenobservations or some other knowledge

• helping to avoid ‘early closure’ of pupils’ own discussion

32

8 The Evidence-based Practice in Science Education (EPSE) network worked with 11 science teachers over a year to develop approaches and resources for teaching Key Stage 2-4 pupils about the nature of science (www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/projs/EPSE).

SECTION 2


• prompting pupils to make a predictionand compare it with actuality

• helping to interpret the implications for science.

These and other forms of teacher guidancecan be used in the context of focusedenquiry to support a strategic balancebetween carefully structured activity and adegree of pupil responsibility for regulatingtheir own learning. Achieving this balanceis particularly important for research-based activity, as discussed in whatfollows.

Focusing research tasks for pupils While the internet offers more up-to-dateand wide-ranging information, freedomand excitement for students, theinformation they obtain from open-ended‘surfing’ is generally less focused, lessage-appropriate, less ability-specific, andless reliable than that from other sources(including CD-Roms), where informationhas been carefully checked and pre-filtered. Research activity therefore needsto be channelled and goal-directed inorder to be productive, especially for lowability pupils. Setting clear parameters –and even time limits – for electronicsearches, and pre-selecting websiteshelps pupils to obtain more useful,accessible, focused and relevantinformation.

In practice it is difficult to obtain a balancebetween being over-directive (providingmore security but limiting imagination,decreasing motivation and risking similartask outcomes) and under-directive(providing opportunity for independentlearning but risking floundering due topupils’ confusion about task requirements);both scenarios are sometimes observed.

Offering a degree of choice within a pre-selected range of sites can provide a com-promise solution here. Deliberate teachingand reinforcement of generic searchstrategies (eg formulation of keywords) hasalso been found to be important.

Developing ‘critical literacy’ Pupils additionally need to develop skillsfor selecting and processing informationderived from the internet and similarsources. Its potential complexity andunreliability mean that simply accessinginformation is insufficient, and the speedand ease of downloading and printing outchunks of material has in fact renderedplagiarism more of an issue than childrencopying chunks of information from a bookor encyclopaedia has been. The notion of‘critical literacy’ (eg Collins et al 1997)describes the need for interpretation,analysis and evaluation – including anassessment of the author’s agenda and authority.

Despite increasing recognition of itscritical importance (eg Hammond 2001),there is little indication that schools arestrategically tackling this issue yet.Evidence from Ofsted (2001) indicates thatpupils lack strategies for obtaining ICT-based information efficiently and are notyet moving beyond the location ofinformation as an end in itself, continuingto present unprocessed information. Whilethis is problematic in any subject involvingresearch activity, the importance ofdeveloping analytic and critical skills maybe even greater in science, dependent as itis on data and evidence rather than values,and where students need to learn how tocollate, weigh up and synthesise suchevidence, and judge its likely validity. Children’s lack of skill in scientificreasoning can be observed to hinder their

33

pupils need todevelop skills forselecting andprocessinginformationderived from theinternet andsimilar sources

progress in evaluating scientific models;ICT does offers a useful medium fordeveloping this skill through the critiqueand analysis of extensive electronicinformation sources (McFarlane &Sakellariou 2002). However, the complexityof the analytic skills required may beunder-estimated and there is littleevidence that pupils are learning themwithout support. Some helpful strategieswhich teachers already employ includerequiring pupils to highlight key points,rework original text into a different form orprepare a class presentation or poster.Explicitly developing pupils’ understandingof the relationship between evidence andconclusions, the skills for forming anddefending their own ideas, and forinterpretation and critical analysis areessential pre-cursors for evaluating theplethora of information availableelectronically.

Linking ICT use to ongoing teaching and learning It is important to stress that althoughsimulations and other tools can provide avirtual alternative to practical work insome situations, using ICT is not perceived– by pupils, teachers or educators – as areplacement for other activities. Thebalancing and integration of use of ICTresources with other teaching and learningactivities, is desirable in many situations;indeed it often provides the greatestbenefits (Ofsted 2002a). Rather than usingICT in isolation, for example, the productsof web searching or simulation-basedactivity can be linked with other classactivities before, during and after thecomputer-based lesson (Finlayson &Rogers 2003; Hennessy et al 1995). Thismeans that explicit links can be madebetween theoretical computer models and

reality, whilst practical demonstration anddevelopment of pupils’ investigative skillsretain some importance. Likewise,handling a physical model or employingvisual aids can also enhance learningduring ICT-supported modelling activity.

Many teachers employ use of ICT afterspending several lessons introducing andexploring the topic area; students are thenfamiliar with key concepts, terms orprocedures (Barton & Still, in press). Somefeel that simpler experiments, at least,should be carried out in the conventionalway, with the power of multimediatechnology reserved for cases where itsignificantly enhances the activity. Othersprefer all feasible experiments to becarried out manually first with subsequentuse of ICT. For instance, one suchapproach is to use sketch graphs to makepredictions about outcomes before usingthe computer to plot graphs of actual data.This provides immediate corroboration (ornot) for predictions and is an effectivecatalyst for discussion. This approachenables teachers to pose questions andpupils to express their ideas by drawing onthe data visible on screen (ibid).Conversely, software for carrying outvirtual experiments can be used forprediction and planning purposes beforepractical work (Walker 2002). In eithercase, important manipulative skills can bedeveloped through a combination ofexpecting pupils to execute manually sometasks involving, for example, graphplotting, but also (subsequently or evenfirst) exploiting the power of the technologyto plot many graphs in succession. Ideally,teachers will develop a balanced approachbetween ‘hands on’ and computermethods and the intricacies of thisrelationship form a fruitful basis forfurther research.

34

explicit links can be made

betweentheoreticalcomputer

models andreality

SECTION 2


Whole class interactive teaching The role of whole class teaching ispotentially very significant. Researchshows that it is still the predominant modeof classroom interaction (Newton et al1999), yet a forum where ICT is currentlyunderused. There is a higher level ofteacher-pupil interaction and a lower levelof information dispensing associated withusing ICT, but whole class teaching ofscience tends to use the computer or datalogger as a demonstration tool (evenwhere logistics favour individual activity),and fails to exploit the interactive potentialof software (Finlayson & Rogers 2003).

Whole class interactive teaching canpotentially be used to establish a cleartask focus, to clarify the focus ofinvestigation, to predict and hypothesise, tointerpret findings and assess theirsignificance, to discuss key concepts and‘procedural learning’ objectives (Gott &Duggan 1995), eg notions of whatconstitutes evidence, to conduct ‘fair tests’,to repeat measurements, and to explorethe accuracy of measurements. Creatingtime for discussion of these issues isextremely important. Question-and-answersessions are particularly valuable inassessing understanding and enablingsharing of ideas.

ICT itself can also be an effective mediumfor whole class interaction; increasingavailability of interactive whiteboards andother forms of computer projection notonly facilitates demonstration, revision andcollation of class results but additionallyoffers the potential for more interactivemodelling of complex processes, skills andtechniques, including scientific reasoning.In particular, a whiteboard goes beyondthe interactive worksheet in enablingstudents to participate directly in whole

class tasks by labelling a diagram,identifying or measuring organisms,categorising or manipulating images (eglinking elements in a food chain). Use ofthese approaches will hopefully increaseas availability of projection technology –and teacher confidence to move out ofsimple demonstration mode – becomesmore widespread. This use could furtherfacilitate the processes of analysis,reflection and consolidation, which are ofparticular importance to science teachersusing ICT (Stodolsky & Grossman 1995).

The strategies outlined above illustrate thepivotal role of the teacher in determininghow effectively ICT is used in practice tomotivate pupils and enrich scienceteaching and learning. They describe waysof overcoming potential drawbacks ofusing ICT without due care and attention tounderlying learning aims. The success ofthe emerging strategies depends oncontinuing to engage pupils in thinkingthrough, discussing and evaluatingscientific ideas or applications – andconsciously developing the subject-specificand generic information handling skillsthat they require. All of the teacher strat-egies discussed above require deliberate,thoughtful and systematic planning. Effective employment of ICT also requiresnew approaches and roles for bothteachers and pupils. In particular, it pointsto developing a classroom culture whichmore strongly encourages pupils to exploreand share ideas, reflections and findings –with working partners, with the teacher,and during whole class discussion(Hennessy et al 2003; Rogers & Wild 1996).In short, it calls for a transformation of theculture of science teaching.

35

USE OF ICT IN THE SCHOOL SCIENCE LAB - A REALITY CHECK

External constraints on teachers’ use of ICTTeachers’ motivation to integrate use ofICT is undoubtedly influenced by theworking contexts – physical, socio-politicaland educational – in which teachers findthemselves. While classroom practice iscurrently developing as outlined above,there are some notable obstacles.Innovation and adaptation are costly interms of time, especially in the presentclimate when ‘initiative overload’ makesmany competing demands on teachers’time and energy. Indeed lack of time wasthe most significant constraint on usequoted by (86-88%) of primary and second-ary science teachers surveyed by Dillon,Osborne, Fairbrother and Kurina (2000).

In addition to the new interpersonal andpedagogic skills which teachers require touse ICT in their classrooms, othercontextual factors which can act asbarriers include: teachers’ lack ofconfidence, experience and training; lackof a supportive organisational culturewithin the school; limited access toresources and timetabled use of dedicatedICT suites; unreliability of equipment andlack of adequate technical support (Dawes2001; Schofield 1995). A recent Ofstedreport (2002b) noted a significantcombined effect of government ICTinitiatives in terms of improved access byscience departments and increasedteacher confidence in classroom use, butaccess to computers in science areas,stocks of reliable data logging equipmentand teacher expertise remain patchy.

External pressure from the nationalassessment regimes further constrains

the use of ICT and the development ofpedagogy. For example, compulsory testsin core subjects at ages 7, 11, 14 involve nouse of ICT. There is also a culture clashbetween an overloaded NationalCurriculum for science which is based onknowledge ‘delivery’ in a highlyprescriptive way, and the opportunitiesafforded by ICT which have more potentialfor developing pupils’ reasoning skills.Moreover, classroom teachers havehistorically had little say in developing howICT should be deployed within theirschools, and for defining its role withinsubject curricula (Cuban 2001: ch6).Imposed policy decisions can, therefore,result in a lack of ‘ownership’. Anothertension is pressure to teach ICT technicalskills through science activity and thedesire to use ICT to facilitate the learningof science. The time needed to helpinexperienced pupils develop their ICTskills can further diminish the opportunityfor subject-specific work.

More optimistically, the government’srecent (New Opportunities Fund) teachertraining intiative for serving teachers (TTA1999), and the National Curriculum fortrainee teachers (DfEE 1998), are based onthe premise that appropriate, indeedcritical, use of ICT is a medium to supportsubject teaching and attainment of itslearning objectives; this is a welcome shiftaway from technology-driven use. Thelatter document provides a reasonablydetailed outline of the generic ways inwhich trainees are expected to use ICTeffectively within subject teaching.

However, despite massive investment inICT initiatives (£1.8 billion has been spentby the government since 1997) and theprominent iconic and ideological status ofICT, there remains a marked lack ofspecific guidance and support for

36

SECTION 2


practitioners in incorporating ICT inappropriate ways directly related to theprescribed subject curriculum (Selwyn1999). Other research has confirmed thatwhile teachers are motivated to integrateappropriate uses of ICT into theirclassroom practice, their understanding ofhow it enhances learning is stilldeveloping, and pedagogy for effective usehas not yet been clearly established(Hennessy et al 2003). Teachersthemselves desire more knowledge in thisarea (Williams et al 2000). In particular,there is a lack of suggestions forproductive internet use.

Training is a major issue here as teacherstry to get to grips with new tools and newways of teaching they require. Forexample, many schools have recentlyacquired interactive whiteboards but lackof time available for training means thatteacher confidence in using the new toolsis currently inconsistent (House ofCommons Science and TechnologyCommittee 2002). However, there isevidence that the ambitious NOF-fundedtraining scheme for teachers in using ICTin the classroom has had more success inscience than in other subjects where theimpact has been minimal (Ofsted 2002b).The Science Consortium was the onlyprovider geared exclusively towardssecondary science and the first nationalprogramme to promote a pedagogy for ICTuse in science. It encouraged teachers toparticipate in an iterative cycle of reflectiveteaching using a carefully preparedframework of lessons and associatedsoftware and sharing written evaluations of

their routine classroom use. The vastmajority of the evaluation reports on22,000 science lessons were positive(Finlayson & Rogers 2003).

Consequences of practical constraints The research literature provides very littlesupport for the popular (though perhapsunrealistic) notion of a technologicalrevolution in teaching and learning as aconsequence of introducing ICT. Similarly,Ofsted (2001) has observed that appropriateand effective classroom use of ICT is infact rare. Available technology is oftenunderused and poorly integrated intoclassroom practice. Last year about twothirds of primary and secondary teachersin English secondary schools reported‘some use’ of ICT in science, and only 26-29% reported ‘substantial use’ (DfES2002b) 9. Similar percentages of teachersperceived substantial or some beneficialeffects of using ICT in science. Despitenumerous reported examples of effectiveuse, clarification of what pupils shouldlearn using ICT – and how teachers shouldfacilitate this – is said to be needed (Ofsted 2002a).

It is becoming clear that having therequisite equipment and software does notguarantee its effective use or even ‘take-up’. Research shows that virtually allsecondary schools possess data loggingequipment and some level of connection tothe internet but practical constraints anduncertainty about pedagogical relevanceand scope hinder regular and effective use(Hammond 2001; Newton 2000). A recentImpaCT2 report 10 concludes that home

37

training is amajor issue asteachers get togrips with thenew tools andnew ways ofteaching theyrequire

9 This has changed radically since the McKinsey (1997) report of a survey carried out a decade ago (1993-4), when less than 5% of science teachers were using ICT regularly in their teaching compared with 34% of mathematics teachers. In 2002, frequency of use was slightly higher in secondary science than in the other core disciplines of mathematics and English, while use at primary level was considerably lower in science (DfES 2002b).

10 http://www.becta.org.uk/research/reports/docs/ImpaCT2_strand_2_report.pdf (section 4: Pupils’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of ICT in the Home, School and Community).

use of internet-linked computers is in factlikely to have a much greater impact onmany pupils’ learning than use at school.Another example is the computer-controlled microscope provided free toeach UK secondary school during ScienceYear (2002). In many cases, the micro-scopes remain in cupboards as teachersare uncertain how to exploit them.

Exceptional use can be found – forinstance, one special school in NorthernIreland uses the microscope innovativelylike an underwater camera brought intothe classroom, offering its physicallydisabled students a rich experiencethrough investigating the teeming life insamples of local pond water (Cole 2002).Nevertheless, it seems that at presenteffective use of ICT in science is confinedto a minority of enthusiastic teachers ordepartments.

As well as lack of use, there is someevidence for the passive or inappropriateuses of ostensibly interactive forms of ICTpreviously discussed, including pupilpresentation of unprocessed informationand inappropriate graphical presentation.Ofsted (2001, p12) complains that too manycore subject teachers “select softwarepackages for their visual appeal ratherthan their relevance to lessons” giving, asan example, the domination of a primarylesson by passive viewing of a simulationof materials dissolving. Simulations ormultimedia information resources whichmake too few cognitive demands on pupils,and are used to replace rather thancomplement practical experiments (andskills), highlight the danger that softwareapplications may become the curriculumitself rather than tools for problem solving,research, knowledge and text creation(CTGV 1996).

Transformation of science activity and pedagogySome of the examples described in thisreport – such as activities based oninteracting with sophisticated simulationsor the integration of software supportingscientific enquiry with practicalinvestigations – characterise the extent towhich the practice, tools and methods ofscience teaching are beginning to adaptand change. There are some isolatedexamples of innovation. However,traditional learning goals and values seemto remain mostly intact – in line with theprescribed curriculum. ICT, so far, hasradically transformed the nature of scienceitself for professional scientists, whoseresearch activity has become dependenton routine access to sophisticatedcomputer-based tools and resources.

In contrast, the use of ICT in schoolscience, on the whole, has yet to establishits transformative role. The researchliterature converges on the conclusion thatteachers tend to use ICT largely to support,enhance and complement existingclassroom practice rather than actually re-shaping subject content, goals,activities and pedagogies (Hennessy et al,submitted; Kerr 1991; Watson et al 1993).As Goodson and Mangan (1995, p119) putit, there is “evidence of reshuffling thepack of cards, but little evidence ofanybody trying a new game”. Since thesame tools can be used in different modes,it is natural for teachers initially to designactivities, which imitate traditionalmethods or experiments. For example,computer projection technology may beused as a substitute for an overheadprojector before animations and hot-linksto internet sources are incorporated.Despite the extraordinary scope offered bythe internet, pupil activity can be narrowly

38

SECTION 2


channelled during research or‘exploration’. Similarly, research for theInteractive Education Project 11 indicatesthat using a simulation to simply replicate– and sanitise – directed (rather thaninvestigative) laboratory work involves nopedagogical shift and may yield littlelearning gain (Baggott la Velle et al 2003).Pedagogic change is inevitably slow and tofully exploit new software takes time(Rogers, in press-b), especially if pupilsare to capitalise upon its powerful use inevaluating, constructing and reformulatingnew ideas and concepts.

However, a gradual process of‘pedagogical evolution’ is now evident asthe teacher’s role develops to encompasssupporting pupils’ learning with ICT.Experiences arising in the course ofgetting to grips with new tools offered byICT, which are themselves continuallyevolving, have led learners to develop newstrategies for learning, and teachers tobegin to re-evaluate and modify aspects oftheir practice and thinking (Ruthven &Hennessy 2002).

The teacher’s role could be described aschanging from that of ‘sage on the stage’to ‘guide on the side’. Teachers are alreadybeginning to develop and trial newstrategies which both positively exploit thenew opportunities arising, and focusattention away from the distracting natureof sophisticated features of the technologyitself, and onto intended science learningobjectives. While teachers are motivatedand committed to using ICT in theclassroom, they are simultaneouslydeveloping a reflective and critical outlook.Evidence would suggest then, that

teachers are working towards harnessingthe potential of ICT to support sciencelearning as far as possible, given the veryreal operational constraints.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

Implications for teachers Educational technology can be exploitedfurther in science education by building on– and disseminating – actual exemplars ofsuccessful practice and pedagogy. Thismeans moving towards structured formsof exploratory use, which becomes morefeasible as science teachers gainexperience and confidence in integratingICT within their teaching.

Increasing availability of interactive linkingbetween software means that electronicworksheets or tutorials can be employedto structure tasks and to guide pupilsalong certain pathways (eg areas of adatabase, customised spreadsheets,computer models, or pre-selectedwebsites). Instructions for discussing anidea with their teacher or peers could evenbe built in to such resources (Rogers, inpress-a), since increasing dependence onthe computer is not, of itself, a desirablegoal. Indeed, an essential feature ofsuccessful teaching with ICT is expectingand fostering active participation of pupils– particularly in research and practicalwork which provides most opportunitiesfor pupil responsibility and engagementwith tasks, but also in teacher-leddiscussion and demonstration (Newton &Rogers 2001, ch3).

39

exploratory usebecomes morefeasible as scienceteachers gainexperience

11 The science subject design team of the ESRC-funded Interactive Education Project are exploring how the mutual interaction between ICT and pedagogy can drive knowledge transformation, aiming towards specifying an effective pedagogy for using ICT (www.interactiveeducation.ac.uk).

The roles of whole class interactiveteaching and the use of ICT to developinvestigative skills are currently under-developed and an increased focus on thesemay prove fruitful. Explicitly developingnew pupil skills such as ‘critical literacy’ isnecessary so that pupils can access,discuss and evaluate information derivedfrom scientific sources. It is also importantto offer strategies for overcoming potentialpitfalls (such as ‘black box’, or overlypassive, approaches). Insisting upon aclear rationale for each form of ICT usewhere identified learning outcomes remainparamount is the first and foremost step toadvancing the contribution that ICT canmake to the learning of science –particularly a science education whichseeks to develop ‘critical science literacy’.

Teachers are progressing steadily and theuse of ICT is permeating to moreclassrooms. Further development,however, depends on providing them withmore time, access to reliable resources,encouragement and support, and offeringspecific guidance for appropriate andeffective use. In short, on a programme ofsustained professional development.

Implications for assessment Currently there is almost exclusiveassessment of the curriculum via writtentests of content knowledge which do notcapture the educational outcomesassociated with using ICT. Computer-based instruments bring their ownproblems, but it can be argued thatassessment frameworks themselves needto alter to reflect changes in the way thatteaching and learning are conducted whensupported by ICT (McFarlane 2001). Withinthe context of a science education whichseeks to place more emphasis on thecritical evaluation, analysis and

interpretation of evidence and data, thepresent focus on the outcome rather thanthe process itself exerts a malign ratherthan a benign effect on teachers’ pedagogyand their use of ICT.

Assessment could instead, or as well,examine the appropriate use of methods(Barton & Still, in press) and this wouldinvolve greater use of teacher assessment.Interim records may be useful indicatorsfor assessment of understanding,reasoning or analytic skills, which maynow take place during the activity. Forinstance, the teacher could circulate,asking probing questions of pupils about predicted or annotated graphs, drafts ofwritten work or research outputs visible ontheir screens, making judgements againstwell-defined criteria of performance.Whilst identifying individual contributionsin collaborative work is recognised asproblematic, the benefits of this style ofworking suggest that we adapt our stylesand modes of assessment to match ourdesired pedagogy rather than the converse.

CONCLUSION

This paper has attempted to review thestate of science education today, theimpact of ICT use on the curriculum,pedagogy and learning, and theimplications for future practice.

The first section outlined a range ofperspectives on the aims of scienceeducation and the associated choicesconcerning curriculum and pedagogy. Itshowed that science education within theUK is in the second phase of a two-partrevolution. The first phase, in the 1980s,achieved the implementation of compulsoryscience education for all from 5-16. The

40

CONCLUSION

second phase, begun in the mid 1990s, hasattempted to argue for, and develop, acurriculum which genuinely meets theneeds of all pupils rather than the few whowill enter the corridors of science. Its goalof fostering ‘scientific literacy’ will requirea new pedagogic approach, one that movesaway from knowledge delivery towardsinvolving pupils more actively in engagingwith scientific ideas and developing theskills necessary for appraising evidence,handling risk and uncertainty, andrecognising social and other influences on(and consequences of) decision makingand research.

The second section has described thepotential role which ICT may play inrevitalising science education to meet such aspirations. It has shown that thispowerful tool can be employed flexibly tosupport different curriculum goals andforms of pedagogy; that there are diverseways of linking ICT use to existingclassroom teaching (including supporting,extending or replacing it); and that there are different modes of using thesame tools.

Yet, whilst the appropriate use of ICTclearly has a transformative potential forscience education and student learning,this is often found only in isolated pocketsof innovation and associated withenthusiastic individuals. As such, ICT stillneeds to embed itself in the ‘habitus’ andculture of the ordinary classroom teacher.

Part of the problem lies with the currentcontent-laden National Curriculum andassociated assessment measures whichreinforce a cultural perspective onteaching science through a process oftransmission (Hacker & Rowe 1997). Theseimpediments have served to stifle the

development of classroom use of ICT in ways which effectively exploit itsinteractivity and potential for supportingactive pupil participation, exploration andcollaboration in science activity.

By contrast, the values of the newemergent science curricula for all pupilswhich give more emphasis on developingcritical and analytical skills are more likelyto foster and support the use of ICT. Forinstance, Osborne et al (2002) found intheir evaluation of the new AS Science forPublic Understanding that use of theinternet was reported as a feature ofapproximately 50% of all lessons.

As the school curriculum begins to forge astronger link between science-as-it-is-taught and science-as-it-is-practised, amajor constraint currently affecting theintegration of ICT use within thecurriculum may be lifted. In short, accessto information and data, its interpretationand critical evaluation, will become centralfeatures of any new syllabi. Such a shiftwould encourage a change in pedagogyand the interactive use of ICT to supportand develop students’ scientific reasoningand analytic skills. The use of ICT willthen, perhaps, lie at the core of scienceteaching and learning rather thanlanguishing on the margins.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are very grateful to Roy Barton andLaurence Rogers for their pioneering workon the use of ICT in science and theirhelpful feedback on an earlier draft of thisreport. The contributions of othercolleagues and the teachers whoparticipated in the research reviewed hereare also acknowledged with thanks.

41

new emergentscience curriculaput moreemphasis ondevelopingcritical andanalytical skill

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abd-el-Khalick, F & Lederman, N (2000).Improving science teachers' conceptions ofthe nature of science: a critical review ofthe literature. International Journal ofScience Education, 22(7), pp665-702

AQA (Assessment and QualificationsAlliance) (1999). Science for PublicUnderstanding: Advanced Subsidiary 5401.Manchester: Assessment andQualifications Alliance

Armstrong, HE (1891). The teaching of thescientific method. The Education Times

Baggott, L & Nichol, J (1998). Multimediasimulation: a threat to or enhancement ofpractical work in science education?, in: JWellington (Ed) Practical Work in SchoolScience. London, New York: Routledge

Baggott la Velle, LM, McFarlane, A &Brawn, R (2003). Knowledgetransformation through ICT in scienceeducation: a case study in teacher drivencurriculum development. British Journal ofEducational Technology (in press), 34(2)

Barnett, C (2001). Prelude to an industrialdefeat from the 1944 Education Act to the1956 White Paper on TechnologicalEducation. London: Royal Society of Arts

Barton, R (1997). Computer-aidedgraphing: a comparative study. Journal ofInformation Technology for TeacherEducation, 6(1), pp59-72

Barton, R (1998). IT in practical work:assessing and increasing the value-added,in: J Wellington (Ed) Practical Work inSchool Science. London, New York:Routledge

Barton, R (2002). Learning Science withthe Aid of Computers. Cambridge:Homerton College 23/10/02

Barton, R (in press-a). Introduction, in: R Barton (Ed) Teaching Secondary Sciencewith ICT. Cambridge: Hill McGraw

Barton, R (in press-b). Teaching SecondaryScience with ICT. Cambridge: Hill McGraw

Barton, R & Still, C (in press). Planning,teaching and assessment using computer-aided practical work (ch4), in: R Barton(Ed) Teaching Secondary Science with ICT.Cambridge: Hill McGraw

Bauer, HH (1992). Scientific Literacy andthe Myth of the Scientific Method. Chicago:University of Illinois Press

Beaton, A, Martin, MO, Mullis, I, Gonzalez,EJ, Smith, TA & Kelley, DL (1996). ScienceAchievement in the Middle School Years:IEA's Third International Mathematics andScience Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: BostonCollege

Bloor, D (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Caswell, B & Bielaczyc, K (2001).Knowledge forum: altering the relationshipbetween students and scientificknowledge. Education, Communication andInformation, 1(3), pp281-305

Caswell, B & Lamon, M (1999).Development of scientific literacy: theevolution of ideas in a knowledge-buildingclassroom, in: J Leach & B Moon (Eds)Learners and Pedagogy. London: PaulChapman/Open University

Claxton, G (1997). A 2020 vision ofeducation, in: J Thomas (Ed) ScienceToday. London: Routledge

Cognition and Technology Group atVanderbilt (CTGV) (1996). Looking attechnology in context: a framework forunderstanding technology and educationresearch, in: DC Berliner & RC Calfee

42

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Eds) Handbook of Educational Psychology.New York: Macmillan Library Reference

Cole, G (2002). Make the most of yourminibeasts. TES Teacher, 17/05/02, pp20-21

Coles, M (1998). The Nature of ScientificWork: a study of how science is used inwork settings and the implications foreducation and training programmes.London: Institute of Education

Collins, H & Pinch, T (1993). The Golem:What Everyone Should Know AboutScience. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress

Collins, J, Hammond, M & Wellington, J(1997). Teaching and Learning withMultimedia. London: Routledge

Conran, J (1983). Primary science 1950-82:a personal view, in: D Holford (Ed) TheTeaching of Primary Science: Policy andPractice. Lewes: Falmer Press

Cossons, N (1993). Let us take science intoour culture. Interdisciplinary ScienceReviews, 18(4), pp337-342

Council of Science and TechnologyInstitutes (1993). Occupational Mappingand Initial Functional Analysis ofOccupations in Science. London

Cox, MJ (1997). The Effects of InformationTechnology on Students' Motivation:summary report. London: Kings CollegeLondon/NCET

Cox, MJ (2000). Information andCommunications Technologies: their roleand value for science education, in: MMonk & J Osborne (Eds) Good Practice inScience Teaching: What Research has toSay. Buckingham: Open University Press

Cuban, L (2001). Oversold and Underused:Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge:Harvard University Press

Dainton, FS (1968). The Dainton Report: AnInquiry into the Flow of Candidates intoScience and Technology. London: HMSO

Dawes, L (2001). What stops teachersusing new technology?, in: M Leask (Ed)Issues in Teaching using ICT. London:Routledge

Deaney, R & Ruthven, K (in preparation).Teachers’ Developing Practical Theories ofTechnology-integrated Pedagogy

Deaney, R, Ruthven, K & Hennessy, S(in press). Secondary school students'perspectives on information and commun-ication technology in subject learning andteaching. Research Papers in Education

DES (1987). The National Curriculum 5-16- a Consultation Document. London: HMSO

DES (1989). Science in the NationalCurriculum. London: HMSO

DES/Welsh Office (1981). The SchoolCurriculum. London: HMSO

DES/Welsh Office (1982). ScienceEducation in Schools: A ConsultativeDocument. London: DES

DfEE (1998). Teaching: High Status, HighStandards. Requirements for Courses ofInitial Teaching Training. Circular 4/98,Annex B: Initial Teacher TrainingCurriculum for the Use of ICT in SubjectTeaching. London: Stationery Office

DfEE/QCA (1999). The NationalCurriculum. London: QCA, HMSO

DfES (2002a). Framework for TeachingScience: Years 7, 8 and 9. London: DfES

DfES (2002b). Statistics of Education:Survey of Information and CommuicationsTechnology in Schools, England 2002

Dillon, J, Osborne, J, Fairbrother, R & Kurina, L (2000). A Study into theProfessional Views and Needs of Science

43

Teachers in Primary and SecondarySchools in England. London: King's College London

Donnelly, J (1999). Interpreting differences:the educational aims of teachers of scienceand history, and their implications. Journalof Curriculum Studies, 31(1), pp17-41

Driver, R, Guesne, E & Tiberghien, A (Eds)(1985). Children's Ideas in Science. MiltonKeynes: Open University Press

Driver, R, Leach, J, Millar, R & Scott, P(1996). Young People's Images of Science.Buckingham: Open University Press

Ellis, V (2001). Analogue clock/digitaldisplay: continuity and change in debatesabout literacy, technology and English, in:A Loveless & V Ellis (Eds) ICT Pedagogyand the Curriculum - Subject to Change.London: Routledge

European Commission (1995). White Paperon Education and Training: Teaching andLearning — Towards the Learning Society.Luxembourg: Office for OfficialPublications in European Countries

Finlayson, H & Rogers, L (2003). Does ICTin science really work in the classroom?Part 1: The individual teacher experience.School Science Review, in press

Finlayson, H, Wardle, J & Rogers, L(2002). Integration of ICT within sciencelessons (grades 5-10). National Associationfor Research in Science TeachingConference, New Orleans

Frost, R, McFarlane, AE, Helmsely, K,Wardle, J & Wellington, J (1994).Enhancing Science with IT. Coventry:National Council for EducationalTechnology

Fuller, G (1998). Cultivating science:negotiating discourse in the popular texts of Stephen Jay Gould, in: R Veel (Ed)Reading Science. London: Routledge

Gee, J (1996). Social Linguistics andLiteracies. London: Taylor and Francis

Giddens, A (1990). The Consequences ofModernity. Cambridge: Polity Press

Goodson, IF & Mangan, JM (1995). Subjectcultures and the introduction of classroomcomputers. British Educational ResearchJournal, 21(5), pp613-628

Gott, R & Duggan, S (1995). InvestigativeWork in the Science Curriculum.Buckingham: Open University Press

Gross, AG (1996). The rhetoric of scienceCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Gross, P & Levitt, N (1994). HigherSuperstition: The Academic Left and itsQuarrels with Science. Baltimore: TheJohn Hopkins University Press

Hacker, RJ & Rowe, MJ (1997). The impactof National Curriculum development onteaching and learning behaviours.International Journal of Science Education,19(9), pp997-1004

Hammond, M (2001). Using the Internet inSecondary Schools: Implications of a CaseStudy. Coventry: Centre for NewTechnologies Research in EducationOccasional Paper, University of Warwick

Harlen, W (1999). The Assessment ofScientific Literacy in the OECD/PISAProject. Speech given at the EuropeanScience Education Research AssociationConference, Kiel, Germany

Hennessy, S (1999). The potential ofportable technologies for supportinggraphing investigations. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 30(1), pp57-60.Full article available athttp://edu.leeds.ac.uk/research/groups/cssme/graphCalc.html

Hennessy, S, Deaney, R & Ruthven, K(2003). Pedagogic Strategies for Using ICT

44

BIBLIOGRAPHY

to Support Subject Teaching and Learning:An Analysis Across 15 Case Studies.Faculty of Education, University ofCambridge, Research Report 03/1

Hennessy, S & Murphy, P (1999). The potential for collaborative problemsolving. D&T, International Journal ofTechnology and Design Education, 9(1), pp1-36

Hennessy, S & O'Shea, T (1993). Learnerperceptions of realism and 'magic' incomputer simulation. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 24(2), pp125-138

Hennessy, S, Ruthven, K & Brindley, S(submitted). Teacher Perspectives onIntegrating ICT into Subject Teaching:Commitment, Change and Caution

Hennessy, S, Twigger, D, Driver, R,O'Shea, T, O'Malley, CE, Byard, M, Draper,S, Hartley, R, Mohamed, R & Scanlon, E(1995). A classroom intervention using acomputer-augmented curriculum formechanics. International Journal ofScience Education, 17(2), pp189-206

Hitch, M (2000). Another dimension:introducing ICT into science lessons iseasy, time-saving and enjoyable. TimesEducational Supplement CurriculumSpecial, Spring 2000, pp18-19

Hodson, D (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), pp115-135

House of Commons Science & TechnologyCommittee (2002). Science Education from14 to 19. London: The House of Commons:Stationary Office

Hunt, A & Millar, R (Eds) (2000). Sciencefor Public Understanding. London:Heinemann Educational

Irwin, A (1995). Citizen Science. London:Routledge

Kerr, ST (1991). Lever and fulcrum:educational technology in teachers'thought and practice. Teachers CollegeRecord, 93(1), pp114-136

Kuhn, D (1993). Science as argument:implications for teaching and learningscientific thinking. Science Education,77(3), pp319-337

Latour, B & Woolgar, S (1986). LaboratoryLife: The Construction of Scientific FactsPrincetown, NJ: Princetown UniversityPress

Layton, D (1973). Science for the People:The Origins of the School Science Curricu-lum in England. London: Allen and Unwin

Layton, D, Jenkins, EW, McGill, S &Davey, A (1993). Inarticulate Science?Perspectives on the Public Understandingof Science. Driffield, Nafferton: Studies in Education

Lederman, NG (1992). Students' andteachers' conceptions of the nature ofscience: a review of the research. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 29, pp331-359

Linn, MC (1999). The impact of technologyon science instruction: historical trendsand current opportunities, in: Fraser & KTobin (Eds) International Handbook ofScience Education. Kluwer AcademicPublishers

Loveless, A, DeVoogd, GL & Bohlin, RM(2001). Something old, something new... ispedagogy affected by ICT?, in: A Loveless &V Ellis (Eds) ICT, Pedagogy and theCurriculum. London and New York:Routledge Falmer

45

McFarlane, A (2001). Perspectives on the relationships between ICT andassessment. Journal of Computer AssistedLearning, 17(3), pp227-234

McFarlane, A & Friedler, Y (1998). Whereyou want IT when you want IT - the role ofportable computers in science education,in: K Tobin (Ed) International Handbook ofScience Education. Amsterdam: Kluwer

McFarlane, A & Sakellariou, S (2002). The role of ICT in science education.Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), pp219-232

McKinsey and Company (1997). The Futureof Information Technology in UK Schools.London: McKinsey and Company

Mellar, H & Bliss, J (1994). Introduction:modelling and education, in: H Mellar, JBliss, R Boohan, J Ogborn & C Tompsett(Eds) Learning with Artificial Worlds:Computer-based Modelling in theCurriculum. London: Falmer

Mellar, H, Bliss, J, Boohan, R, Ogborn, J& Tompsett, C (1994). Learning withArtificial Worlds: Computer-basedModelling in the Curriculum. London:Falmer Press

Mercer, N & Wegerif, R (1999). Children'stalk in the development of reasoning.British Educational Research Journal,25(1), pp95-111

Merron, S & Lock, R (1998). Doesknowledge about a balanced diet influenceeating behaviour? School Science Review,80(290), pp43-48

Millar, R (1996). Towards a sciencecurriculum for public understanding.School Science Review, 77(280), pp7-18

Millar, R & Driver, R (1987). Beyondprocesses. Studies in Science Education,14, pp33-62

Millar, R & Osborne, JF (Eds) (1998).Beyond 2000: Science Education for theFuture. London: King's College London

Milner, B (1986). Why teach science andwhy to all?, in: B Nicholl (Ed) The ASEScience Teacher's Handbook. London:Hutchinson

Moseley, D, Higgins, S, Bramald, R,Hardman, F, Miller, J, Mroz, M, Harrison,T, Newton, D, Thompson, I, Williamson, J,Halligan, J, Bramald, S, Newton, L,Tymms, P, Henderson, B & Stout, J (1999).Ways Forward with ICT: Effective Pedagogyusing Information and CommunicationsTechnology for Literacy and Numeracy inPrimary Schools. Newcastle: NewcastleUniversity, Durham University and CEMCentre, Durham University

Newton, LR (2000). Data logging inpractical science: research and reality.International Journal of Science Education,22(12), pp1247-1259

Newton, LR & Rogers, L (2001). TeachingScience with ICT. London: Continuum

Newton, P, Driver, R & Osborne, J (1999).The place of argumentation in thepedagogy of school science. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 21(5), pp553-576

Niederhauser, D & Stoddart, T (2001).Teachers' instructional perspectives anduse of educational software. Teaching andTeacher Education, 17(1), pp15-31

Norris, S (1997). Intellectual independencefor nonscientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education.Science Education, 81(2), pp239-258

O'Malley, C (1995). Computer SupportedCollaborative Learning. New York:Springer-Verlag

46

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ofsted (2001). ICT in Schools: The Impactof Government Initiatives, An InterimReport April 2001. London: Office forStandards in Education

Ofsted (2002a). ICT in Schools: Effect ofGovernment Initiatives. London: Office forStandards in Education

Ofsted (2002b). ICT in Schools: Effect ofGovernment Initiatives - SecondaryScience. London: Office for Standards inEducation

Osborne, JF & Collins, S (2000). Pupils'and Parents' Views of the School ScienceCurriculum. London: King's CollegeLondon

Osborne, JF, Duschl, R & Fairbrother, R(2002). Breaking the Mould: TeachingScience for Public Understanding. London:Nuffield Foundation

Osborne, JF, Ratcliffe, M, Collins, S,Millar, R & Duschl, R (2001). What Shouldwe Teach about Science? A Delphi Study.London: King's College

Osborne, RJ (1985). Building on children'sintuitive ideas, in: RJ Osborne & PFreyberg (Eds) Learning in Science: TheImplications of Children's Science.Auckland: Heinemann

Pellechia, M (1997). Trends in sciencecoverage: a content analysis of three USnewspapers. Public Understanding ofScience, 6, pp49-68

Pickering, A (1984). Constructing QuarksEdinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Popper, K (1959). The Logic of ScientificDiscovery. London: Hutchinson

QCA/DfEE (2000). Science: a Scheme ofWork for Key Stage 3. London:Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

Rogers, L (2002a). Learning science withICT: how do teachers make a difference?,The CeNTRE Seminar Series on theRelationship between ICT and SpecificSubject Disciplines, Coventry

Rogers, L (2002b). Physics in new fieldsand modern applications. Groupe Inter-national de Recherch sur l'Enseignmentde la Physique (GIREP), Lund

Rogers, L (in press-a). The future of ICT inscience education (ch10), in: R Barton (Ed)Teaching Science with ICT. Cambridge: HillMcGraw

Rogers, L (in press-b). Integrating ICT intothe curriculum (ch9), in: R Barton (Ed)Teaching Secondary Science with ICT.Cambridge: Hill McGraw

Rogers, LT & Wild, P (1996). Datalogging:effects on practical science. Journal ofComputer Assisted Learning, 12, pp130-145

Rudolph, JL (2000). Reconsidering the'nature of science' as a curriculumcomponent. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 32(3), pp403-419

Ruthven, K & Hennessy, S (2002). Apractitioner model of the use of computer-based tools and resources to supportmathematics teaching and learning.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(1),pp47-88

Ruthven, K, Hennessy, S & Brindley, S(submitted). Teacher Representations ofthe Successful Use of Computer-basedTools and Resources in Teaching andLearning Secondary English, Mathematicsand Science

Schofield, JW (1995). Computers andClassroom Culture. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press

47

Scrimshaw, P (1993). Cooperative writingwith computers, in: P Scrimshaw (Ed)Language, Classrooms and Computers.London: Routledge

Scrimshaw, P (1997). Computers and theteacher's role, in: B Somekh & N Davis(Eds) Using Information TechnologyEffectively in Teaching and Learning.London: Routledge

Selinger, M (2001). Information andcommunications technologies inrepresentations of mathematics, in: A Loveless & V Ellis (Eds) ICT, Pedagogyand the Curriculum. London: Routledge

Selwyn, N (1999). Why the computer is notdominating schools: a failure of policy or afailure of practice? Cambridge Journal ofEducation, 29(1), pp77-91

Stodolsky, SS & Grossman, PL (1995). Theimpact of subject matter on curricularactivity: an analysis of five academicsubjects. American Educational ResearchJournal, 32(2), pp227-249

Taylor, C (1996). Defining Science: ARhetoric of Demarcation. Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin Press

Thomas, G & Durant, J (1987). Why shouldwe promote the public understanding ofscience?, in: M Shortland (Ed) ScientificLiteracy Papers. Oxford: OxfordDepartment of External Studies

Traweek, S (1988). Beamtimes andLifetimes: The World of High EnergyPhysicists. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press

TTA (1999). The Use of Information andCommunications Technology in SubjectTeaching: Identification of Training Needs.London: Teacher Training Agency

Wadsworth, P (2000). What's happening toscience?, Primary Science Review, 61, pp31-32

Walker, D (2002). No crossed wires. TESTeacher, 22 November 2002, pp30-31

Wardle, J (in press). Handling andinterpreting data in school science (ch7),in: R Barton (Ed) Teaching Science withICT. Cambridge: Hill McGraw

Watkins, C & Mortimore, P (1999).Pedagogy: What do we know?, in: PMortimore (Ed) Understanding Pedagogyand its Impact on Learning. London: PaulChapman

Watson, DM, Cox, M & Johnson, D (Eds)(1993). The ImpacT Report: An Evaluationof the Impact of Information Technology onChildren's Achievements in Primary andSecondary Schools. London: Departmentfor Education and Kings College London

Wellington, J (in press). Multimedia inscience teaching (ch6), in: R Barton (Ed)Teaching Science with ICT. Cambridge: HillMcGraw

Wiliam, D (1999). Inaugural Lecture: The Meanings and Consequences ofEducational Assessments. London: King'sCollege, London

Williams, D, Coles, L, Wilson, K,Richardson, A & Tuson, J (2000). Teachersand ICT: current use and future needs.British Journal of Educational Technology,31(4), pp307-320

Wynne, B (1996). May the sheep safelygraze?, in: B Wynne (Ed) Risk, Environment& Modernity. London: SAGE Publications

48

BIBLIOGRAPHY

About Futurelab

Futurelab is passionate about transforming the way people learn. Tapping into the hugepotential offered by digital and other technologies, we are developing innovative learningresources and practices that support new approaches to education for the 21st century.

Working in partnership with industry, policy and practice, Futurelab:

• incubates new ideas, taking them from the lab to the classroom• offers hard evidence and practical advice to support the design and use of innovative

learning tools• communicates the latest thinking and practice in educational ICT• provides the space for experimentation and the exchange of ideas between the

creative, technology and education sectors.

A not-for-profit organisation, Futurelab is committed to sharing the lessons learnt fromour research and development in order to inform positive change to educational policyand practice.

Futurelab1 Canons RoadHarboursideBristol BS1 5UHUnited Kingdom

tel +44 (0)117 915 8200fax +44 (0)117 915 [email protected]

www.futurelab.org.uk

Registered charity 1113051

Creative Commons

© Futurelab 2006. All rights reserved; Futurelab has an open access policy which encourages circulation ofour work, including this report, under certain copyright conditions - however, please ensure that Futurelab isacknowledged. For full details of our Creative Commons licence, go to www.futurelab.org.uk/open_access.htm

Disclaimer

These reviews have been published to present useful and timely information and to stimulate thinking anddebate. It should be recognised that the opinions expressed in this document are personal to the author andshould not be taken to reflect the views of Futurelab. Futurelab does not guarantee the accuracy of theinformation or opinion contained within the review.

This publication is available to download from the Futurelab website –www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm

Also from Futurelab:

Literature Reviews and Research ReportsWritten by leading academics, these publications provide comprehensive surveys ofresearch and practice in a range of different fields.

HandbooksDrawing on Futurelab's in-house R&D programme as well as projects from around theworld, these handbooks offer practical advice and guidance to support the design anddevelopment of new approaches to education.

Opening Education SeriesFocusing on emergent ideas in education and technology, this series of publicationsopens up new areas for debate and discussion.

We encourage the use and circulation of the text content of these publications, whichare available to download from the Futurelab website – www.futurelab.org.uk/research.For full details of our open access policy, go to www.futurelab.org.uk/open_access.htm.

Literature Review in Science Education and the Role of Ict: Promise ...

Documents

Transcript of Literature Review in Science Education and the Role of Ict: Promise ...