Innovations in science teacher education: Effects of integrating ...

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Computers & Education 51 (2008) 646–659 www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Innovations in science teacher education: Effects of integrating technology and team-teaching strategies Jang Syh-Jong

*

Graduate School of Education, Chung-Yuan Christian University, Chung-Li 32023, Taiwan, ROC Received 19 April 2007; received in revised form 22 June 2007; accepted 8 July 2007

Abstract The purpose of this study was to integrate technology and team-teaching techniques into science teacher education method courses in order to explore the effects of such integration on preservice teachers. The participants included one instructor and a total of 42 preservice teachers. A technology team-teaching model (TTT) was designed in this study to restructure science method courses with technology. This study used a mixed-method design, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative techniques. The results revealed that there were significant differences in ‘‘designing an appropriate science topic to be taught with technology’’ and ‘‘integrating computer activities with appropriate pedagogy in classroom instruction’’ (F = 5.260, p < 0.05, and F = 10.260, p < 0.01, respectively). The results also showed that the TTT model could enhance the integration of science teaching theories and practice. Team-teaching technique facilitated the integration of technology in science lesson design and teaching practice, and enhanced friendship through interaction. The TTT model could better the science learning experience of preservice teachers and serve as useful reference for other teacher education institutes. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Web-based technology; Team-teaching; Science teacher education

1. Introduction A newly integrated curriculum scheme was implemented in primary and secondary schools of Taiwan in 2001. This new curriculum reform explains not only how the curriculum should be changed and modified, but also how teachers would implement innovative teaching in their classrooms. Such reform will inevitably affect the design and instruction of teacher education courses in universities. New science teachers should be equipped with the ability to integrate and design the curriculum and aim for innovative teaching (Jang, 2006a; National Research Council, 1996). Therefore, teacher educators are challenged with the task of preparing teachers who can utilize technology as an essential tool for innovative teaching in developing a deep understanding of science for themselves and their students. Recent trends in teacher education have emphasized *

Tel./fax: +886 3 2656812. E-mail address: [email protected]

0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.07.001

S.-J. Jang / Computers & Education 51 (2008) 646–659

647

the importance of learning with technology rather than learning about technology (Angeli, 2005; Li, 2003). Technology was best learned in context that preservice teachers should learn technology through the integration of technology into their teacher education course work and field experience (Handler, 1993; Munday, Windham, & Stamper, 1991). One of the keys to improving teacher’s preparation for literacy-technology integration is to embed technology within courses on literacy methods, and to provide courses focused specifically on technology (Angeli, 2005; Davis & Falba, 2002; Labbo & Reinking, 1999; Watts-Taffe, Gwinn, Johnson, & Horn, 2003). However, teacher education programs often offer one basic technology course that preservice teachers are required to take (Pope, Hare, & Howard, 2005; Willis & Sujo de Montes, 2002). This basic technology course should be a foundation for integrated activities in all courses (Pope et al., 2005). Then preservice teachers learn with the technology by being exposed to authentic, learner-centered activities that allow them to construct their own understanding of the learning outcomes (Doering, Hughes, & Huffman, 2003; Wang, 2002; Wang, Ertmer, & Newby, 2004). Traditionally, preservice teachers should learn how to incorporate these new technological assets into the teaching methods and practices that are to be used in their future classes (Rosaen, Hobson, & Khan, 2003; Stetson & Bagwell, 1999; Swain, 2006). Many studies indicate that preservice teachers need to see good technology practices modeled by themselves who are given the opportunities to practice with the technology, and reflect on their use of technologies in order to plan curriculum and instruction in the classroom (Doering et al., 2003; Handler, 1993; Lewis, 2006; Rosaen et al., 2003; Schaverien, 2003; Schrum, Skeele, & Grant, 2003; Vannatta & Fordham, 2004). Angeli (2005) used an instructional design model for restructuring a science teacher education course with technology. The results obtained indicated that the task of preparing preservice teachers to become technology-competent was difficult and required much effort in providing them with ample opportunities during their education to develop the competencies needed to teach with technology. In particular, team-teaching offer several important advantages for preservice teachers, including increased support, the opportunity for ongoing discussion about teaching, and experience in learning how to collaborate to enhance technology competence in teaching and practice (Bullough, Young, Birrell, & Clark, 2003). Team-teaching involves two or more preservice teachers whose primary concern are the sharing of teaching experiences in the classroom, being reflective dialoguing with each other (Jang, 2006a, 2006b; Eick & Dias, 2005). However, there was very few web technology courses integrated with team-teaching technique for science teacher education programs. In this study, a model was developed to integrate web-based technology and team-teaching technique into courses of science teacher education method. The purpose of this research was to explore the impact on such integration of knowledge learning, and examine the ability of capitalizing technology among preservice science teachers. 2. Theoretical framework The web-based learning environment is established according to constructivism in which the learners can participate in the learning environment and construct their knowledge in ways that are meaningful to them (Annetta & Shymansky, 2006; Jang, 2006a; Jonassen, 1996). The Internet has the possibility of providing a stimulating learning environment to engage learners in meaningful learning through reflection, application and interaction (Macdonald, Stodel, Farres, Breithaupt, & Gabriel, 2001). It provides the opportunity for communication with peers and teachers to influence students’ science interest in positive ways (Mistler-Jackson & Songer, 2000; Songer, 1998). Communication on the web is characterized by social and academic interactions, including the exchange of scientific data, personal experiences, and observations. These interactions create opportunities for friendships and a broadened understanding of others’ perspectives (Means & Olson, 1995). Through web-based technology, preservice teachers communicate to share expertise. They receive and provide information to other preservice teachers about a host of educational themes that may concern management issues, teaching practices and resource materials. In communities of practice, electronic dialogue on classroom issues has been shown to support effective reflection and shared practical knowledge among preservice teachers (Barab, Makinster, Moore, & Cunningham, 2001; Edens, 2000; Levin, 1999). This approach is socially constructivist in nature because learning depends upon constructing personal knowledge for teaching through social interactions in a community of

648


practice (Jang, in press; Vygotsky, 1978). Knowledge is collaboratively constructed between individuals whence it can be appropriated by each individual. This form of thinking and dialogue among preservice teachers aligns reflection closely with practice. Preservice teachers posted reflective thoughts and queries on personal practice to a specified Internet site for practical feedback from others in the community. Electronic forums help support this sharing and reflection between preservice teachers that in the past could only occur in face-to-face meetings or seminars (Upitis & Russell, 1998). Mitchell (2003) argued that through the on-line activity distinctive sets of writing practices enabled preservice teachers to make connections between often the disparate parts of teacher education programs of theory and practice. Despite the promise of web-based technology, previous studies find no significant difference between various web-based systems and face-to-face instruction (Cohen, McLaughlin, & Talbert, 1993; Cooper, 2001; Johnson, 2000; Songer, Lee, & Kam, 2002; Russell, 1999). Weigel (2000) suggested that the no-significance theory might represent the most egregious benchmark in the past 20 years since it has been employed to justify the use of more technology in education instead of rich technology-design content. Joy and Garcia (2000) attributed the ongoing no-significant-difference results in web-based learning research to poorly designed studies (Lewis, 2006). However, Annetta and Shymansky (2006) used web-based sessions with streamed videotaped presentations supported by interaction through web discussion boards for elementary school teachers. A repeated measures design was employed to analyze the science learning and attitudes of the study participants. Analysis of variance of participants’ post-session science scores yielded differences on multiplechoice and constructed-response science subscales. Schaverien (2003) used a web-delivered technology and science education context in which preservice teachers could develop their ability to recognize, describe and theorize learning. This e-learning environment aimed to use advanced technologies for learning, to bring about larger scale improvement in classroom practice than has so far been affected by direct intervention through teacher education. Preservice teachers’ short, intensive engagement with the Generative Virtual Classroom during their practice teaching was examined. Findings affirmed the worth of this e-learning system for teacher education and the power of a biologically based, generative theory to make sense of the learning that occurred. Stylianidou, Boohan, and Ogborn (2005) described research into the nature of teachers’ transformations of computer modeling, and the development of related teacher training materials. Eight teachers helped to identify factors that favor or hinder the take-up of innovative computer tools in science classes, and to show how teachers incorporated these tools in the curriculum. The training materials used the results to provide activities enabling teachers to learn about the tools and about the outcomes of the research into their implementation, and help them take account of these ideas in their own implementation of the innovations. Team-teaching is also socially constructivist in nature. Through social interactions in a community of practice (Jang, 2006b), preservice teachers are given the opportunities to act on their ideas and reflect in and on their actions. Their understanding evolves through a meaning negotiation process in which they discuss their own ideas and consider the ideas of others (Bayer, 1990). For the purpose of this research, team-teaching (Sandholtz, 2000; Welch & Sheridan, 1995) and coteaching (Cook & Friend, 1996; Walther-Thomas, Brtant, & Land, 1996) will be used interchangeably to identify a classroom with two or more preservice teachers who share lesson planning, team-teaching practice and evaluating responsibilities. Cook and Friend (1996) also described five variations of coteaching: one teaching/one assisting, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and team-teaching. In this study, team-teaching referred to a team of preservice teachers taking turns in leading discussions or playing roles in demonstrations. Team-teaching provides preservice teachers with a zone of proximal development, the interaction between them and a new form of societal activity. The central purpose of dialoguing is to further develop the existing understanding of the teaching situation in order to increase professional growth (Eick & Dias, 2005; Roth, Tobin, Zimmermann, Bryant, & Davis, 2002; Tobin, Roth, & Zimmermann, 2001). Communities of practice in team-teaching consist of practitioners at various levels of competence who identify with the shared practice of teaching (Wenger, 1998). Entering communities of practice, preservice teachers also begin identifying with the role of teacher and the discourse of the teaching community (Volkmann, Friedrichsen, Abell, Arbaugh, & Lannin, 2004). This identity grows in practice through peripheral participation and increasing self-confidence and success in implementing their chosen practices (Eick, Ware, & Williams, 2003; Guillaume & Rudney, 1993). As technical competence grows, they begin to demonstrate the professional knowledge for teaching that


649

can only be learned in the context of authentic practice (Wenger, 1998). Roth et al. (2002) considered coteaching as a good means of achieving deep learning of science concepts while learning alternative ways to teach the same subject matter. Since coteachers teach together, interactions occur continuously. Coteachers create material and social resources continuously that allow for new forms of agency at subsequent moments. Such resources include physical as well as social spaces and meaning-making entities. Coteachers take advantage of these resources in synchronized and coordinated ways (Roth, Tobin, Carambo, & Dalland, 2005). From the above argument, both web-based technology and team-teaching techniques developed from social constructivism have the advantages for preservice teachers to enhance their professional knowledge and skills. Eick and Dias (2005) studied secondary preservice science teachers’ thinking on coteaching practice for the development of conscious elements of practical teacher knowledge supporting the use of structured inquiry. Reflective dialogue on practice in an electronic forum was analyzed for elements of formal learning and biography that informed thinking on practice. Changes in thinking over time were considered in light of observed practice, including preservice teachers’ thinking about inquiry through use of Science and Technology for Children (STC) curriculum. Discussion highlighted the integration of formal knowledge, biography, and peripheral participation with development of knowledge of students in learning to teach in this model. Furthermore, Jang (2006a) incorporated web-assisted learning with team-teaching in seventh-grade science classes, and used a quasi-experimental method, assigning the four sampled science classes into experimental and control groups. The results showed that the average final exam scores of students experiencing the experimental teaching method were higher than the scores of those receiving traditional teaching. Therefore, this study aimed to integrate two simultaneous interventions into courses of science teacher education method in order to explore the effects of such integration on learning technology. 3. Research methodology This study used a mixed method design, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative techniques. In order to examine if teaching methods had a significant relationship with the scores of the experimental group and the control group, quantitative analyses were employed to investigate the differences between the experimental teaching method and traditional teaching method. Furthermore, qualitative analysis was performed to understand preservice teachers’ thinking from other data. Qualitative data were a combination of documentary interpretation (Erickson, 1986) and qualitative analysis (Strauss, 1987). The main data included questionnaires, online data and interviews. The themes of the outlined results were generated by the questions in this questionnaire. Then, this research adopted the data processing and analysis method suggested by Patton (1990), which comprises the organization of data and documentary interpretation. 4. Context and participants The context of this study contained two method courses – ‘‘Teaching principle’’ and ‘‘Physical science teaching method and practice’’. Most teacher education institutions in Taiwan specified these courses to be two of the core courses related to science teaching theories, strategies, methods and practice. However, the current preservice teacher programs emphasized teaching theories and methods rather than actual implementation or technology-based application in teaching. In this study, the two courses were arranged and taken for one year. ‘‘Teaching principle’’ course lasted 16 weeks for the first semester and ‘‘Physical science teaching method and practice’’ course lasted another 16 weeks for the second semester. Both of them ran for two hours every week. The aims of the courses were to combine the science concepts, instructional theories and methods, and technological application to future teaching. The participants were one instructor and a total of 42 preservice teachers. The instructor, the primary researcher, specialized in science teaching methods and strategies. These preservice teachers were selected for a two-year teacher education program from the Department of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Computer Science at the University. They were all interested in being a science teacher in secondary schools. To be able to participate in this program, the applicants had to (1) obtain academic scores higher than 40 percent in their classes, (b) pass the written examination on basic science concepts and knowledge of education, and (c) pass the oral examination which included role play, instant response and vision of education.

650


These samples were purposely assigned as the control and experimental groups to receive different teaching methods for two semesters. The control group gave instruction using the traditional teaching method, whereas the experimental group integrated web-based technology and team-teaching. These courses were offered in two semesters of 2005 with a total enrollment of 20 science preservice teachers involved in the control group, whereas, these courses were also offered in two semesters of 2006 with a total enrollment of 22 science preservice teachers involved in the experimental group. To understand if there were significant differences in the participants’ basic science literacy prior to the experiment, the researcher performed statistical analysis using the preservice teachers’ scores on entrance exams of the teacher education program. The mean score for the experimental group was 75.21, and the score for the control group was 76.08. A t-test of the mean scores of the two groups found no significant difference (t = 0.968, p > 0.05) in basic science literacy for the preservice teachers in the both experimental and control groups. 5. Technology team-teaching model and implementation The researcher has set up the online course on the university e-learning system. The teaching materials for each chapter of this course contained contents, slides, videos, online references, and related websites. The setting of the online teaching system included curriculum information, forum (curriculum, subject, and group discussions), homework, reports, grade checks and online discussion board. The team-teaching model of this study was adopted from Cook and Friend (1996), which involved preservice teachers taking turns in leading discussions or playing roles in demonstrations. For the purpose of team-teaching,, the instructor divided the experimental preservice teachers into several small groups, with 3–4 preservice teachers in each group, so that each group could discuss and share their perspectives in team-teaching practice. Angeli (2005) designed an instructional systems deign model for integrating technology in science method courses (Dick & Carey, 1985; Bagdonis & Salisbury, 1994). The model was applicable or transferable to different disciplines, and aimed at aligning content, pedagogy, and technology as these relate to a specific discipline. The researcher integrated its function with team-teaching strategy to revise its structure for this study. The technology team-teaching model (TTT), shown in Fig. 1, was designed in this study to assist teacher educator restructure science method courses with technology, so that preservice teachers would apply technology in teaching and learning. The experimental courses, ‘‘Teaching principle’’ and ‘‘Physical science teaching method and practice’’, were blended learning courses, which took place in an online learning system and in a physical classroom. The research was divided into four stages as follows. 5.1. Stage one: introduction on instructional theory and technology During the first eight weeks, the course outline, teaching principle and method, and method of evaluation would be introduced in the classroom. The instructor explained the meaning and concepts of instructional theories and strategies, such as constructivism, team-teaching and collaborative learning using PowerPoint. For teaching theory and technology, the preservice teachers would learn how to retrieve information, download materials, and discuss online. Prior to the official implementation of the web-based learning network, the preservice teachers would become familiar with the implementation and functions of the hardware and software and reinforce the support in either hardware or software to prevent possible technical problems. In this stage, the preservice teachers would identify science topics that students find difficult to understand because they are too abstract or complicated, and which teachers have difficulty in teaching such as the topic ‘Refraction of light’. 5.2. Stage two: implementation of web-based learning network During the 9th to 16th week when web-based learning was implemented, the preservice teachers did not have to attend the class in person, but watched the slides and videos online for each chapter. If they had any questions related to the text, they would discuss on the online forum. The instructor and peers might respond to their questions at once. The instructor would regularly post news and related curriculum information. To assess how well the preservice teachers learned and retained their attendance online, the instructor


Stage One

Introduction of theory and technology

The instructor

651

Stage Two Preservice teacher web-learning Transform science content into forms that are

Explain instructional theories

pedagogically powerful

and strategies using PowerPoint Select technology tools with pedagogy to afford content transformations Identify science topics difficult to understand

Stage Four Reflection and modification

Stage Three Team-teaching practice Lesson design integrating

Peer/instructor feedback and reflection

computer activities with appropriate topic-specific pedagogy

Team practice of science Modification of lesson design and team-teaching

pedagogy with technology in classroom

practice

Fig. 1. A technology team-teaching model in science education method courses.

would evaluate them in two ways, individually and within the group, every other week. The preservice teachers individually had to learn to collect and analyze data and to participate in the discussion board at least twice for each topic. Team members would upload their group homework on the web, after they reached consensus through the discussion. In this stage, the preservice teachers would apply and transform science content into forms that are pedagogically powerful, which could be discussed and posted online. They would select technology tools with appropriate features to afford content transformations and support proper teaching strategies. For instance, in the unit of ‘Carbon Dioxide’, the preservice teachers had to think about what technology tools to employ as well as how to apply them in the content and teach with learning-cycle strategy. The collaborative learning method not only could promote their motives to be part of the web-based learning network but also actively enhanced their participation to improve learning quality (Hiltz, 2000).

652


5.3. Stage three: lesson plan design and team-teaching practice From week 17 to week 28, the preservice teachers learned to design lesson plan and adopt innovative teaching method and strategy in team-teaching practice. Specifically, in this stage, each group would make three demonstrations of their team-teaching to the whole class, and each demonstration lasted about 40 min. The preservice teachers needed to design the lesson plan with technology, and integrate computer activities with appropriate topic-specific pedagogy to teach collaboratively. The preservice teachers who were team-teaching could integrate the software, PowerPoint, with teaching content and gave other preservice teacher-students handouts; therefore, every preservice teacher could assess and learn from each other. For example, one group integrated computer skills in the topic of popcorn to illustrate the relationship between temperature and gaseous matter, while another group illustrated the process of how distances affect light and vision by computer animation. Preservice teacher-students would criticize and analyze their observation about the teaching strategies and related teaching activities used by the onstage peer, using the method of writing with the instructional principles and theories they learned from the curriculum in the web-based learning network. In the meantime, they would write down their own thinking and raise questions in the online discussion forum. In the end, they had to post their comments online to share with other peers so as to learn from each other. 5.4. Stage four: reflection and modification Week 29 to week 32 were for reflection and modification. After finishing the teaching practice for each group, preservice teachers of each group would in turn comment on their practice; then followed by other peers’ reflections. Finally, the instructor would give appropriate feedback and comment for their demonstration and practice. The activities of this stage would evaluate the effects of such integration on theory learning and ability of capitalizing technology, and stimulate professional growth among preservice teachers. Furthermore, the reflective stage would help them self-examine their current lesson plan design and teaching practice in order to modify future teaching practice. 6. Traditional model and implementation On the other hand, the learning procedure for this course in the traditional classroom was to have the curriculum content always elaborated by the instructor for the entire semester. It was therefore divided into two stages. The first stage was for ‘‘Teaching principle’’ course for the first 16 weeks (the first semester). The web-based learning technique was not implemented in this stage. The instructor explained the meaning and concepts of instructional principle, theories and strategies, such as cognitive teaching and learning, using PowerPoint. Sometimes, the instructor would use asking skills to interact with the preservice teachers on related questions. Group discussions were held for some important topics and assignments were also used for the assessment. Then, the next stage was for ‘‘Physical science teaching method and practice’’ course from week 17 to week 32 (the second semester). The preservice teachers learned individually how to design lesson plan and apply teaching theories and strategies to practice teaching. They needed to design the lesson plan with technology, and integrate computer activities with appropriate topic-specific pedagogy to teach two times individually for about 20 min. The practice would show the preservice teacher’s application of instructional theories and strategies. After the practice, the instructor would give instant feedback. The major difference was that the traditional courses did not implement the web-based learning technique, or team-teaching lesson design and practice. 7. Data collection The study used three types of data collection approaches, namely questionnaires, online data, and interviews. All preservice teachers were asked to fill in a questionnaire at the end of the semester. Its content was designed by the researcher according to the subject and purpose of this study, including constructing knowledge and theories, designing science topic to be taught with technology, applying technology and pedagogy, and overall satisfaction with the curriculum. The content of the questionnaire includes the following statements.


1. 2. 3. 4.

653

I can understand the science teaching knowledge and theories of the related curricula. I can select and design an appropriate science topic to be taught with technology. I can integrate computer activities with appropriate pedagogy in classroom instruction. Overall, I am satisfied with the curriculum.

The above statements were rated using the Likert five-point scale with 5 for strongly agree, 3 for neutral, and 1 for strongly disagree. The scores in the questionnaire were analyzed using the F-test to see if there was significant difference in the mean scores of these two groups. In addition, there was an open-ended section at the end of each question for the researcher to understand the reason behind the participant’s response. The online data included the questions and content of the online discussions between the instructor and preservice teachers, online submission of homework and feedback, communicating personal problems and responding through email and other related online information. Semi-structured interview was adopted in this research at the end of the semester. The interview solicited more in-depth response to the questionnaire designed to gain a deeper understanding of the preservice teachers. One from each of the six experimental groups was selected for the interview in order to find out their opinions about the teaching method. Another six preservice teachers were selected from the control group. According to the information gathered from the interviews, the researcher wished to: (a) confirm their responses to the questions of the questionnaire; and (b) discern the possible discrepancies of their views written down online. 8. Data analysis This research used both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Statistical analysis was performed on the quantitative data from the questionnaires to discover whether the difference in the scores of the survey on the experimental teaching method and traditional teaching method could reach a significant level. Qualitative data included questionnaires, online data, and interviews with preservice teachers. The themes of the results were first generated by the questions in this questionnaire. A constant comparative method was employed to compare questionnaire data with other data (online and interview) using the categories generated (Strauss, 1987). This research adopted the method of data processing and analysis suggested by Patton (1990). It comprised two aspects: the organization of the data and the documentary interpretation. The data were first collected, coded, compared and then organized in categories. Then, on the basis of the categories, the data were interpreted. 9. Results and discussion Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of the preservice teachers’ responses to the four statements in questionnaire including mean scores and standard deviation of both the control and experimental groups. In order to see if teaching methods were significantly related to the scores of the two groups, a one-way ANOVA was employed to compare their scores. As seen in the results, there were significant differences in ‘‘designing an appropriate science topic to be taught with technology’’ and ‘‘integrating computer activities with appropriate

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of preservice teachers’ questionnaires (n = 42) Dimensions of the questions

Group

Mean

SD

N

1. Understanding the science teaching knowledge and theories

Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental

4.23 4.35 3.65 4.27 3.45 4.32 4.30 4.41

0.66 0.75 0.99 0.77 0.99 0.72 0.73 0.59

20 22 20 22 20 22 20 22

2. Designing an appropriate science topic to be taught with technology 3. Integrating computer activities with appropriate pedagogy in classroom instruction 4. Overall satisfaction * **

p < 0.05. p < 0.01.

F 0.110 5.260* 10.260** 0.285

654


pedagogy in classroom instruction’’ (F = 5.260, p < 0.05, and F = 10.260, p < 0.01, respectively.), but there were no significant differences in ‘‘satisfaction with the overall curriculum’’ (F = 0.285, p > 0.05), and ‘‘understanding the science teaching knowledge and theories’’ (F = 0.110, p > 0.05). The researcher classified the results of the study into the following categories. 9.1. TTT model enhanced integration of science teaching theory and practice As seen in Table 1, although the mean score for the experimental group was higher than that for the control group in the aspect of ‘‘understanding the science teaching knowledge and theories’’, there were no significant differences between these two groups. The educational theories learned through the traditional teaching method are usually objective and abstract. The preservice teachers often did self-examination to see if they could effectively and practically apply the theories they learned. They often felt that they only knew what the theories were, but did not know how to use and integrate the theories into part of their own teaching. On the contrary, through the TTT model, the theories learned in the first and second stages could be discussed, searched and compared through the Internet. In the constructivist web-based learning process, through discovery and exploration, the learners were more likely to internalize and organize their knowledge. One of the preservice teachers stated: The constructivist view of learning theory was very objective to me. If the instructor did not demonstrate how to use it, I would not thoroughly understand and apply it in my future teaching. (Tom’s interview response, 2005/5/24) By putting topics such as the meaning and applications of Bruner’s cognitive teaching theory on the e-learning website, we could discuss and share each other’s opinions and further extend the related questions and ideas. If there were unclear concepts, I would prefer to look up the answer that I needed by myself. I think the learning process provides an easier way for me to construct knowledge. (Ann’s interview response, 2006/5/23) Moreover, the method of exchanging learning feedback online led the preservice teachers to a better understanding of the theories and stimulated their thinking for teaching practice. In the third and fourth stages of the TTT model, the preservice teachers could apply their understanding of the teaching knowledge and theories to lesson design; then practice their lesson through team-teaching in classroom demonstration. In this case, the model helped the preservice teachers identify areas of strength and weakness in their understanding and teaching. They could therefore try to overcome their weakness. However, because web-based learning environment was a virtual community, unlike traditional face-to-face instruction, it was difficult to show the authentic scenario, the physical interaction between groups or peers, and the preservice teachers’ feelings at the moment when sharing ideas online. Two of the preservice teachers stated: The course had given me lots of practical experience and helped me apply the educational theories to classroom practice. It helped me clarify areas of strength and weakness of my teaching. I could then correct or modify my teaching in order to improve myself. I think this should be the aim of teacher education training. (Bee’s questionnaire response, 2006/5/23) I think the interaction in traditional classroom is more authentic and active. The definition of interaction to me is that an individual communicates and responds by verbal language or body language or eye contact with each other. When I faced the computer, I could not feel myself actively involved in learning. Thus, I think web-based learning environment can only be used for providing information and assisting traditional learning. (Julie’s interview response, 2006/5/23) 9.2. Team-teaching strategy facilitates integration of technology in science lesson design One of the findings in the study was that there was significant difference among preservice teachers in ‘‘designing an appropriate science topic to be taught with technology’’. The results showed that preservice


655

teachers in the experimental group learned how to develop skills in integrating technology to design more interesting and lively teaching content and activities in their teaching practice. However, there were other concerns; for example, not every unit in science could be taught with technology integrated, it was difficult to independently design technology-based lesson in traditional classroom, and it took more time for the preservice teachers to design lesson for their team-teaching demonstration than for individual teaching. The time-consuming process of designing lesson for team-teaching was mainly caused by the communication and coordination among the teachers. However, it was essential for team teachers to communicate and coordinate in order to create better ideas in integrating appropriate teaching strategies and technology in team-teaching. Two of the preservice teachers stated: Although it took at least double the time to prepare for team-teaching demonstration than for individual teaching, it helped combine the appropriate teaching strategy and technology in teaching, thus enriching the teaching content. (Caleb’s questionnaire response, 2006/5/23) I think not every unit in the science course could be taught with the integration of technology and it was also difficult to independently design technology-based lesson in traditional classroom. (Bee’s interview response, 2005/5/24) Through team-teaching, we could work collaboratively to elaborate each other’s specialties and develop our skills in integrating technology to design more interesting and lively teaching content. I think it will help my future teaching. (Tom’s interview response, 2006/5/23) The preservice teachers in the experimental group co-designed a unit called ‘carbon dioxide on the website’. They made a website where the process and result of the science experiments were clearly illustrated. The website combined technology and science content that could assist teachers’ demonstration and create new learning experience for students. One of the preservice teachers stated: We designed a unit called ‘carbon dioxide on the website’ using the idea of why a balloon blown by human could not fly away as its theme and combined technology, a short film, and common life experiences about carbon dioxide to reinforce students’ perceptions. (Mary’s online data, 2006/4/28) 9.3. Application of instructional technology and pedagogy in science classroom Another finding in the study was that there was significant difference in ‘‘integrating computer activities with appropriate pedagogy in classroom instruction’’ among preservice teachers. Those of the experimental group reflected that they have learned how to integrate technologies with teaching through the web-based learning environment and related websites. Specifically, they have learned how to use the Internet resources and to illustrate teaching content. Through the collaboration of team-teaching, science content was not the only subject taught in science class and neither was technological content in computer class. It was successfully integrated into more lively and active ‘Science and Technology’ class. In contrast, in the traditional teaching class, only a small number of preservice teachers would use technology in the teaching practice. Two of the experimental preservice teachers stated: I used computer flash from the website of a famous character called A-Kuei in teaching. I think that illustrating the famous computer animations in teaching not only could explore the science concept but also had entertaining effect, thus enhancing the learners’ motivation to learn. (Dick’s online data, 2006/4/22) The science major preservice teacher in our group suggested experimenting with popcorn to explain the relationship between temperature and gas. The computer major preservice teacher therefore came up with the idea of teaching the skill of posting the experiment on the website in the computer class. I think it was a good example of learning from peers through team teaching. (Lee’s interview response, 2006/5/ 23)

656


9.4. Influence of collaborative preservice teachers’ attitudes on team-teaching As seen in Table, although the mean score for the experimental group was higher than that of the control group in the aspect of ‘‘satisfaction with the overall curriculum’’, there were no significant differences between these two groups. However, the preservice teachers considered that team-teaching technique could enhance friendship through interaction. Successful team-teaching depended heavily on teachers’ willingness to compromise and abilities of self-reflection. The preservice teachers used to prepare teaching materials by themselves. Therefore, when discussions with others were required in team-teaching, they needed to learn to accept others’ opinions and to have an open attitude. If the preservice teachers were willing to cooperate with one another, they would learn new things from each other and enjoy team-teaching. The researcher found that collaborative preservice teachers were willing to help each other in this study. In the process, they even experienced an elevating contentment, improving their view on collaboration and resulting in an even better teaching performance and cooperative relationship. Two of the preservice teachers stated: We all have different traits. If coordination goes wrong, problems will arise. However, if I have a cooperative and positive attitude, not only will I enjoy a pleasant team-teaching experience, I will also learn a lot from it. (Ann’s interview response, 2006/5/23) We could not make such a good lesson design and teaching practice if we worked separately. The sharing of work and team-teaching practice gave us the greatest enjoyment. (Helen’s interview response, 2006/5/23) 10. Implications and conclusion According to the results, there were significant differences in the aspect of ‘‘integrating computer activities with appropriate pedagogy in classroom instruction.’’ As in other similar studies, the researcher learned that the preservice teachers could enhance the application of technology and knowledge by integrating technology into teacher education courses (Angeli, 2005; Jang, in press; Schaverien, 2003; Schrum et al., 2003). However, the findings of this study indicated that the TTT model led the preservice teachers to a better understanding of the theories and stimulated their thinking for technology teaching. Specifically, they have learned how to use the Internet resources and to illustrate teaching content by computer animation. Furthermore, the experimental preservice teachers in the team-teaching practice utilized various technologies and instructional theories in the classroom while the traditional teacher education class focused on self-constructing knowledge and technological application. It also showed that the preservice teachers in the control group demonstrated less integration of technology and instructional theories than those in the experimental group. Therefore, the integration of technology and team-teaching was not only a way to construct knowledge and theories, but also a good teaching strategy to promote the utilization of instructional technology in teaching for preservice teachers. Another finding in the study was that there was significant difference in the aspect of ‘‘designing an appropriate science topic to be taught with technology.’’ The innovative course in the study required the preservice teachers to design lesson plan collaboratively. The results indicate that when they worked independently on lesson design in traditional classroom, they were more efficient, spent less time and had more autonomy. However, not every unit in science could be taught with technology integrated, it was difficult to individually design technology-based lesson in traditional classroom. Therefore, although planning for team-teaching took more time than for individual teaching, the time-consuming process was mainly due to the team teachers’ communication and coordination, which were considered essential for team-teaching. In the team-teaching activity of the study, the preservice teachers not only could integrate appropriate teaching strategies and technology but were also willing to help each other (Jang, 2006b; Bullough et al., 2003). They even experienced an elevating contentment, and improved their view on collaboration, thus resulting in an even better teaching performance and cooperative relationship. These were things that were found missing in traditional teacher education courses. The TTT model of the study was found to enhance the integration of theory and practice (Mitchell, 2003; Schaverien, 2003). Because the educational theories learned by the traditional teaching method were usually


657

considered objective and abstract, the preservice teachers felt that through the TTT model, it was more likely for them to combine the theory with practice and further internalize and organize their knowledge. The TTT model helped the preservice teachers integrate efficiently appropriate strategy and technological application in lesson plan design and increased the opportunities for communication, explanation, and exchange of experiences with peers. Through team-teaching practice, they then created more teaching ideas and modified their own teaching. These made the differences between the TTT model and the teaching model of traditional teacher education course. However, some of the preservice teachers thought that web-based learning environment could only be the tool to assist traditional classroom teaching because it was a virtual community difficult to show the authentic scenario and the physical interaction between groups or peers. The integrated course of the study was a preliminary attempt to fit the needs of the government’s newly integrated curriculum scheme and to train the preservice teachers’ ability of integrating technology and team-teaching. The experience of web-based learning and team-teaching practice prepared the preservice teachers’ abilities to integrate theory and practice, design technology-based syllabus, and adopt innovative teaching techniques and strategies, thus successfully practiced in teaching demonstration. In order to achieve better effectiveness, the limitations of web-based learning environment and preservice teachers’ personalities needed to be worked out. Finally, the TTT model could increase the learning experience of both the preservice teachers and the instructor and also serve as useful reference for other teacher education institutes. References Angeli, C. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: Effects on preservice teachers’ technology competency. Computers & Education, 45, 383–398. Annetta, L. A., & Shymansky, J. A. (2006). Investigating science learning for rural elementary school teachers in a professionaldevelopment project through three distance-education strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(10), 1019–1039. Jang, S. J. (2006a). The effects of incorporating web assisted learning with team teaching in seventh-grade science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 615–632. Jang, S. J. (2006b). Research on the effects of team teaching upon two secondary school teachers. Educational Research, 48(2), 177–194. Jang, S. J. (in press). The effects of integrating technology, observation and writing into a teacher education method course. Computers & Education. Bagdonis, A., & Salisbury, D. (1994). Development and validation of models in instructional design. Educational Technology, 34(4), 26–32. Barab, S. A., Makinster, J. G., Moore, J. A., & Cunningham, D. J. (2001). Designing and building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the inquiry learning forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 71–96. Bayer, A. S. (1990). Collaborative-apprenticeship learning: Language and thinking across the curriculum, K-12. London: Mayfield Publishing Company. Bullough, R. V., Young, J., Birrell, J. R., & Clark, D. C. (2003). Teaching with a peer: A comparison of two models of student teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 57–73. Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1996). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. In E. Meyen, G. Vergason, & R. Whelan (Eds.), Strategies for teaching exceptional children in inclusive settings (pp. 155–182). Denver: Love. Cooper, L. (2001). A comparison of online and traditional computer applications class. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 28, 52–64. Davis, K. S., & Falba, C. J. (2002). Integrating technology in elementary preservice teacher education: orchestrating scientific inquiry in meaningful ways. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(4), 303–329. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1985). The systematic design of instruction (second edition.). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with technology? Journal of Research in Education, 35(3), 342–361. Edens, K. M. (2000). Promoting communication, inquiry, and reflection in an early practicum experience via an on-line discussion group. Action in Teacher Education, 22, 14–23. Eick, C., & Dias, M. (2005). Building the authority of experience in communities of practice: The development of preservice teachers’ practical knowledge through coteaching in inquiry classrooms. Science Education, 89, 470–491. Eick, C., Ware, F., & Williams, P. (2003). Coteaching in a science methods course: A situated learning model of becoming a teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 74–85. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. Handbooks of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan. Guillaume, A. M., & Rudney, G. L. (1993). Student teachers’ growth toward independence: An analysis of their changing concerns. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 65–80. Handler, M. G. (1993). Preparing new teachers to use computer technology: Perceptions and suggestions for teacher educators. Computers & Education, 20(2), 147–156.

658


Hiltz, S. R. (2000). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 4(3), 140–151. Johnson, D. C. (2000). and programming in the school mathematics curriculum: Support is waning – Is there still a case to be made? Education and Information Technologies, 5, 201–214. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mind tools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Joy, E. H., & Garcia, F. E. (2000). Measuring learning effectiveness: A new look at no significant difference findings. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4, 33–39. Labbo, L. D., & Reinking, D. (1999). Negotiating the multiple realities of technology in literacy research and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 478–492. Levin, B. B. (1999). Analysis of the content and purpose of four different kinds of electronic communications among preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 139–156. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281. Li, Q. (2003). Would we teach without technology? A professor’s experience of teaching mathematics education incorporating the internet. Educational Research, 45(1), 61–77. Macdonald, C. J., Stodel, E. J., Farres, L. G., Breithaupt, K., & Gabriel, M. A. (2001). The demand-driven learning model: A framework for web-based learning. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 9–30. Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology’s role within constructivist classrooms. In Paper presented as part of the symposium, teachers, technology and authentic tasks: Lessons from within and across classrooms, at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459–479. Mitchell, J. (2003). On-line writing: A link to learning in a teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 127–143. Munday, R., Windham, R., & Stamper, J. (1991). Technology for learning: Are teachers being prepared? Educational Technology, 31(3), 29–31. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication. Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2005). Enhancing technology use in student teaching: A case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 573–618. Rosaen, C. L., Hobson, S., & Khan, G. (2003). Making connections: Collaborative approaches to preparing today’s and tomorrow’s teachers to use technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 281–306. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Carambo, C., & Dalland, C. (2005). Coordination in coteaching: Producing alignment in real time. Science Education, 89, 675–702. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Zimmermann, A., Bryant, N., & Davis, C. (2002). Lessons on and from the dihybrid cross: an activity-theoretical study of learning in coteaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 253–282. Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Raleigh: North Carolina State University. Sandholtz, J. H. (2000). Interdisciplinary team teaching as a form of professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(3), 39–50. Schaverien, L. (2003). Teacher education in the generative virtual classroom: developing learning theories through a web-delivered, technology-and-science education context. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1451–1469. Schrum, L., Skeele, R., & Grant, M. (2003). One college of education’s effort to infuse technology: A systemic approach to revision teaching and learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 256–271. Songer, N. B. (1998). Can technology bring students closer to science? In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (pp. 333–348). AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Songer, N. B., Lee, H.-S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128–150. Stetson, R., & Bagwell, T. (1999). Technology and teacher preparation: An oxymoron? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7, 145–152. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press. Stylianidou, F., Boohan, R., & Ogborn, J. (2005). Science teachers’ transformations of the use of computer modeling in the classroom: Using research to inform training. Science Education, 89, 56–70. Swain, C. (2006). Preservice teachers’ self-assessment using technology: Determining what is worthwhile and looking for changes in daily teaching and learning practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 29–59. Tobin, K., Roth, W.-N., & Zimmermann, A. (2001). Learning to teach science in urban Schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 941–964. Upitis, R., & Russell, T. (1998). Building a teacher education community: Combining electronic mail with face-to-face interactions. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. 77–109). London: Falmer Press. Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253–272. Volkmann, M., Friedrichsen, P., Abell, S., Arbaugh, F., & Lannin, J. (2004). Becoming a secondary science teacher: Exploring the development of teacher identity in an alternative certification program. In Paper presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Nashville, TN. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


659

Walther-Thomas, C., Brtant, M., & Land, S. (1996). Planning for effective co-teaching: The key to successful inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255–265. Wang, Y. (2002). When technology meets beliefs: Preservice teachers’ perception of the teacher’s role in the classroom with computers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 150–161. Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231–250. Watts-Taffe, S., Gwinn, C. B., Johnson, J. R., & Horn, M. L. (2003). Preparing preservice teachers to integrate technology with the elementary literacy program. Reading Teacher, 57(2), 130–140. Weigel, V. (2000). E-learning and the tradeoff between richness and reach in higher education. Change, 33, 10–16. Welch, M., & Sheridan, S. M. (1995). Educational partnerships: Serving students at risk. Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Willis, E. M., & Sujo de Montes, L. (2002). Does requiring a technology course in preservice teacher education affect student teacher’s technology use in the classroom? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(3), 76–80.