Amanda L. Gonczi, Jennifer L. Maeng, and Randy L. Bell

CHAPTER THREE

Elementary Teachers’ Science Education Computer Simulation Use: How Can Professional Development Promote Instructional Adoption?

Amanda L. Gonczi, Jennifer L. Maeng, and Randy L. Bell

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to characterize and compare 67 elementary science teachers’ computer simulation use prior to and following computer simulation professional development aligned with Innovation Adoption Theory. The professional development highlighted computer simulation affordances that elementary teachers might find particularly useful. Qualitative and quantitative data, including perceptions surveys, participant interviews, Quarterly Lesson Reports, and videotaped lessons, were analyzed to identify changes in participants’ computer simulation use. Variables that hindered or promoted instructional computer simulation use were also identified. Baseline participant data indicated elementary teachers did not commonly use simulations during science instruction. There was a significant increase in the number of participants that used computer simulations pre- (17%) to post- (52%) professional development. Computer simulation implementation patterns following the professional development demonstrated participants consciously took advantage of the tool’s content-based and pedagogical benefits for inquiry-based instruction. The primary barrier to instructional computer simulation use was participants’ belief that computer simulations

1

1

are most effective when used by students independently or in small groups. Findings illuminate Innovation Adoption Theory’s potential and limitations for use when designing educational technology professional development. A modified six-stage adoption model is recommended to address participants’ beliefs.

Introduction

Elementary science teachers are tasked with teaching all school subjects. However, they may have limited background knowledge in certain subjects, including science (Ginns & Watters, 1995). Furthermore, due to the lack of coursework in science content areas, elementary teachers may hold alternative conceptions about science content, scientific inquiry, and the nature of science (Ireland, Watters, Brownlee, & Lupton, 2012; Schoon & Boone, 1998). Thus, elementary teacher professional development must work to improve science instruction quality by providing curricular options that help prevent the perpetuation of alternative conceptions and bridge potential gaps in elementary teachers’ content knowledge.

Science education computer simulations (hereafter referred to as simulations) are an instructional technology option that facilitate achievement of many desirable science instruction outcomes (National Research Council [NRC], 2011). Simulations are interactive, simplified virtual models of scientific phenomena that allow students to observe the relationships between variables. In addition to developing students’ science content understanding, simulations can improve students’ scientific inquiry skills (NRC, 2011). As a result of elementary teachers limited content knowledge or inquiry experience, the data-based nature of simulations may be especially appealing and valuable to elementary teachers.

Simulations have unique characteristics that may facilitate or hinder elementary teachers’ instructional integration and should be considered during professional development to promote effective instructional use (NRC, 2011). Educational technology professional development is usually very general and may not necessarily address the affordances of simulations elementary teachers should take advantage of or challenges to critical student use (Chiu & Linn, 2012; Guzey & Roehrig, 2009). Utilizing educational technologies is not simple and requires teachers have specific knowledge about how, when, and why to use a specific educational technology. Furthermore, the beliefs individual teachers hold regarding educational technologies influence whether teachers are willing to incorporate them and how they incorporate them (Morrison, 2013). As a result, research that examines how a technology specific professional development program shapes elementary teachers’ beliefs about and instructional simulation useis needed. The complexity of teaching that emerges from student, teacher, context, and educational technology characteristics and their interactions, demands a nuanced examination of teacher educational technology use and professional development outcomes.

What are Science Education Computer Simulations?

In this study, we build upon the definition of computer simulations previously developed as “dynamic models of scientific phenomena and processes” (Smetana & Bell, 2014; Smetana & Bell, 2011). Our working simulation definition includes three additional criteria. First, simulations are specifically designed and intended to help science students understand a specific natural phenomena. Therefore, they are simplified models of the actual phenomena. Second, they include some degree of student interactivity. Finally, simulations can potentially foster science understanding in one of three ways:(a) student engagement in scientific inquiry through manipulating variables and measuring outcomes either qualitatively or quantitatively, (b) building virtual models, or (c) engaging in unique behaviors representative of specific types of scientists (e.g. using data to forecast future weather as a meteorologist would).

These additional definitional components are necessary to specifically identify science education computer simulations as the diversity and number of online simulations has expanded into various career areas including medicine and mathematics. In addition, the expanded definition prevents conflation among dynamic visualizations, games, and simulations (Aldrich, 2009; NRC, 2011). Simulations differ from dynamic visualizations because the latter do not necessarily permit student interactivity although they allow students to make observations of abstract science content such as photosynthetic processes (Chiu & Linn, 2012). Simulations may have some game-like qualities but can be distinguished from digital games by identifying the primary development and use goal. The primary goal in the design and use of a simulation is for students to understand the scientific phenomena or process underlying the software, not for the student to “win.” By comparison, computer games clearly have a desired outcome that students are focused on rather than understanding a science concept or scientific process. In summary, a simulation is an interactive, simplified virtual model of scientific phenomena designed and used to foster students’ scientific skill development and/or content and nature of science understanding.

Simulation Professional Development: A Design Strategy

Simulations can foster students’ content understanding, engage students in scientific inquiry, and help students develop accurate nature of science conceptions during instruction (NRC, 2011). Simulations promote conceptual understanding and achievement in Physics (Dega, Kriek, & Mogese, 2013; Zacharia, 2007), Chemistry (Plass et al., 2012), Earth Science (Trundle & Bell, 2010), Biology (Kinzie, Strauss, & Foss, 1993) and engineering design (Klahr, Triona, & Williams, 2007). However, simulations greater value may lie in their ability to involve students in scientific inquiry (Kubicek, 2005; NRC, 2011; Windschitl, 2000).

Ideally, simulations should be used to engage students in inquiry instruction (NRC, 2011). Inquiry instruction is student-centered pedagogy that involves students in one or more inquiry-related skills as students seek to answer a research question in ways similar to a scientist (NRC, 1996; NRC, 2012). These skillsinclude asking questions, developing and using models, designing and carrying out investigations, analyzing data, constructing explanations, engaging in evidence-based argumentation, and communicating scientifically (NRC, 1996; NRC, 2012). Inquiry-based simulation use accomplishes several desirable goals. Inquiry-based simulation use facilitates students’ deep conceptual understanding and promotes scientific inquiry skills (Finkelstein et al., 2005; Winberg & Berg, 2007; Trundle & Bell, 2010). It also mimics the process scientists undergo to generate knowledge (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004). When science instruction affords students opportunities to behave like scientists, students become more motivated and interested in science (Gibson & Chase, 2002). As a result, simulation use to support inquiry instruction is desirable to foster students’ immediate academic achievement and long-term interest and success in scientific fields (Liao & Chen, 2007; Sun, Lin, & Yu, 2008).

There appears to be an initial assumption in many professional development studies that all instructional digital technology types share similar features and therefore generalized instructional technology professional development and research are justified (Gerard, Varma, Corliss, & Linn, 2011; Roehrig & Guzey, 2009). However, this underlying assumption is problematic. For example, Roehrig and Guzey(2009) described four beginning secondary teachers’ instructional technology practices and experiences following a year-long professional development program that emphasized inquiry instruction and technology integration. They found the teachers encountered unique integration challenges with different instructional technology types. In particular, simulation use posed unique classroom management issues. Therefore, generalized educational technology professional development may not effectively prepare elementary teachers to integrate specific digital tools, especially simulations. Furthermore, elementary teachers’ limited science content knowledge and experience with scientific inquiry means simulation professional development should attend to these teachers’ possible alternative inquiry conceptions and support accurate nature of science understanding (Ireland et al., 2012.)

Elementary teachers’ educational and science backgrounds offer simulation professional development programs unique opportunities for both positive outcomes andimplementation challenges. On the one hand, because of limited science background knowledge, elementary teachers may be amenable to incorporating educational technology that complements gaps in their own understanding and helps them provide students with accurate representations of scientific phenomena (Pope, Jayroe, Franz, & Hamil, 2008; Trundle & Bell, 2010). Therefore, professional development with elementary teachers that highlights this instructional benefit may result in widespread simulation adoption. On the other hand, many elementary science teachers have a vague notion of scientific inquiry as “finding things out” or manipulating materials without understanding the evidence-based nature of knowledge generation in science (Ireland et al., 2012; Morrison, 2013). Therefore, limited or alternative scientific inquiry and nature of science conceptions also need to be attended toduring simulation profession development before elementary teachers can be expected to marry desirable pedagogy with educational technology (Ireland et al, 2012).

Innovation Adoption Theory

Innovation Adoption (IA) Theory (Rogers, 1985) explains why professional development participants might ultimately adopt innovations including simulations. The theory is based on a five-stage model that an individual progresses through when innovations arise and individuals choose to either adopt or reject the product. Stage one is marked by the individual’s initial awareness of the innovation. Stage two is characterized by a growth in the individual’s knowledge about the innovation, particularly its benefits. Stage three is achieved when the individual makes the decision to attempt to utilize the innovation as a result of being persuaded of its benefits in stage two. In stage four, the innovation is used for the first time. Finally, in stage five the individual reflects on their experiences with the innovation and decides to either fully adopt or discontinue using the innovation.

In education, professional development provides teachers opportunities to learn about new educational innovations such as simulations (stage 1). Based on IA Theory it is the responsibility of professional development implementers to convince the participants of the innovation’s instructional value (stage 2) in order for subsequent adoption to occur (stage 3). It is essential that professional development programs help move participants beyond stage 2 for two reasons. First, without pedagogical and technology-related support, teachers often find it easier to continue using strategies and educational tools that they are familiar with rather than trying new ones (Gerard et al., 2012). Second, without being convinced that innovative educational technology should be utilized for reform-based science instruction, participants are likely to use new tools for traditional teacher-centered pedagogy (Dunleavy, Dexter, & Heinecke,2007; Gerard et al, 2011; Waight & Abd-El-Khalick, 2007). The professional development program that served as the context of this investigation was designed to provide participants with opportunities to use simulations within inquiry-based lessons after they learned about their instructional benefits. This design might help participants not only adopt an educational tool, but also adopt student-centered practices. The professional development program is described in the methods section, below.

Purpose

Educational technology professional development needs to be aware of and consider participant and educational technology characteristics and the process of innovation adoption. Unfortunately, educational technology professional development opportunities do not often take into consideration participant characteristics and needs (Zhao & Bryant, 2006). In addition, professional development often provides superficial coverage of many curricular choices rather then helping teachers develop deep technological pedagogical content knowledge about one educational technology (Graham et al., 2009; Guzey & Roehrig, 2009). While it may seem appealing to introduce participants to as many different innovative educational technologies as possible, this approach may not permit simulation implementation in desirable instructional contexts, including inquiry-based learning. Thus, the following research questions guided this investigation:

1. To what extent did participants adopt simulations following professional development aligned with IA Theory and utilize them for inquiry and nature of science instruction?
2. What fostered participants’ simulation adoption?
3. What limitedparticipants’ simulation adoption?

Study Context

Participants

The participants in this study were a subset of elementary teacher participants in the Virginia Initiative for Science Teaching and Achievement (VISTA) Elementary Science Institute (ESI) professional development program. Teachers applied to VISTA and were accepted in teams of 2-5 from the same school. Two cohorts of elementary teachers (N=67) (Cohort 1: 2 male, 25 female; Cohort 2: 6 male, 34 female) over the span of three years participated in the computer simulation professional development study. The participants ranged in science teaching experience from 0 to 23 years (M=12.21). Seven teachers (10.4%) held bachelors degrees in either Earth Science or Biology. None of the participants had degrees in Chemistry or physics. Fifty-four participants (80.6%) held education-related degrees.

For each participant, data werecollected for two years. The first year constituted baseline data that reflected the teachers’ instructional practices prior to the professional development. The second year of data collection occurred following the professional development. Thus, changes in any instructional practices could be more confidently ascribed to the professional development.

Data across the two cohorts were combined to attain a large enough sample size that might clarify simulation use differences pre-and post-professional development. Independent samples t-tests ensured both cohorts were equivalent in their simulation use confidence pre- and post- professional development. Levene’s test for equal variances confirmed variance normality (p.05). No significant differences between Cohort 1 and 2 participants’ self-report simulation use confidence existed at the beginning of the baseline data collections year (Table 1). Cohort 1 and 2 participants’ simulation use confidence means were alsostatistically similar immediately prior to the professional development and following the professional development. This indicates the participants in each cohort had similar simulation use confidence during the baseline data collection year and that the professional development was implemented with fidelity across cohorts. As a result, Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 participants were combined for subsequent quantitative data analysis.

Table 1

Cohort 1 and 2 Self-Reported Computer Simulation Use Confidence (Perceptions Surveys)

Cohort 1
M (SD) / Cohort 2
M (SD) / df / t / Significance
(2-tailed)
Year 1, Baseline confidence / 2.4 (0.9) / 2.3 (1.3) / 61 / .516 / .607
Year 2, Pre-PD confidence / 2.7 (1.0) / 2.2 (1.2) / 61 / 1.70 / .082
Year 2, Post-PD confidence / 3.8 (1.0) / 3.6 (1.0) / 62 / .654 / .516

Note: 1= not very confident; 5 very confident

Virginia Initiative for Science Teaching and Achievement

The Virginia Initiative for Science Teaching and Achievement (VISTA) provided professional development to elementary (grades 4-6) science teachers. The professional development included a four-week summer institute (ESI) and follow-up academic year support. The VISTA professional development had five foci designed to increase students’ conceptual understanding, scientific literacy, and interest in science. VISTA constructs included: (a) problem-based learning (PBL), (b) inquiry instruction,(c) nature of science instruction (NOS), (d) hands-on learning (HOS), and (e) instructional technology integration (Sterling & Frazier, 2010; Sterling, Matkins, Frazier, & Logerwell, 2007). The first four constructs are defined in Table 2.

To facilitate instructional technology use within these instructional contexts, VISTA introduced participants to simulations. In addition to free web-based simulations participants were given ExploreLearning® accounts that provided access to the company’s evidence-based commercial simulations (Gizmos®). ExploreLearning® Gizmos® are designed for students in grades 3-12. Many Gizmos® allow students to manipulate variables and measure outcomes to develop conceptual understanding in the earth, biological, physical, and life sciences. VISTA implementers encouraged participants to utilize simulations that facilitated students’ understanding of abstract science concepts and engaged students in inquiry learning. By focusing on these benefits, professional development implementers identified general tool affordances and helped the elementary participants understand how to capitalize on these tools given the level of their individual content and inquiry-based knowledge.

Table 2

The VISTA Constructs

Construct / Definition
PBL / Students work over time to solve a real-world problem by engaging in scientific inquiry.
Inquiry / Students ask questions, collect and analyze data, and use evidence to solve problems or answer questions.
NOS / Students understand the values and assumptions inherent to the development of scientific knowledge through explicit instruction.

All treatment participants received three hours of simulation professional development designed to move participants quickly through adoption stages 1-3. The professional development first provided an overview of simulations and web access (stage 1). Implementers subsequently demonstrated simulation use for inquiry instruction and identified relevant science content addressed with the tool (stage 2). Participants were then provided content-relevant lesson planning time (stages 3).

During the initial simulation professional development module, implementers emphasized the value of simulations for science content that is difficult for students to visualize or experience in the classroom and for inquiry-based instruction. Subsequently, participants had the opportunity to use simulations during inquiry-based lessons in a summer camp setting surrounded by supportive school team members and professional development implementers. Thus, potentially negative ramifications for a less than perfect lesson were virtually nonexistent in the camp compared with the participants’ usual school setting. A benign camp setting reduced any professional risk participants might have perceived in their school context that can prevent first innovation attempts (Rogers, 1985). In addition, debriefs with participants and professional development implementers at the end of each camp day allowed participants to reflect on what went well or did not go well during the camp lesson and consider changes they could make to improve future instruction. Many, though not all, elementary participants used simulations in their camp lessons. Those that did not actually use them likely observed other participants implement them in their camp lessons. Thus, the VISTA professional development was designed to help the participants move through stages 1-4 of IA Theory to facilitate simulation adoption once the participants returned to their schools in the fall.