Pressures from various sectors of society have seen computers made a big presence in Victorian schools in the last 10 years. Integrating Learning Technology (LT) into all Key Learning Areas of every school’s curriculum has been a priority school policy under both the previous Victorian government and the current government. Over the last 5-10 years, large amounts of money have been provided to set schools up with computers and associated technologies. In the area of science, a range of LT resources is available for use in the teaching and learning processes in the classroom. However, there has been little evaluation of the types and methodology of usage and the effectiveness of these resources in the process of knowledge construction in students studying science. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, this exploratory study has been aimed at identifying where science teachers are currently at with the use of computer-based technologies in their teaching. The study investigated science teachers’ attitudes towards the use of computer-based technologies in their teaching; the types and availability of computer-based resources for use in the teaching of science in their schools; those resources that they have found to be effective pedagogical tools in helping students learn science; and the kinds of professional development that they would like to undertake with regards to using computer-based technologies in their classes.

The study shows that most teachers have embraced the introduction of these technologies into the school structure rather well and are generally positive about the potential of the technologies for science teaching and learning. However the use of these technologies in classroom teaching is patchy across and within schools, and often on an ad hoc basis. A range of obstacles preventing the use of these technologies are identified and discussed in this paper.

In the last 2 decades, Australian schools have experienced a dramatic growth in the use of computer-based technologies for educational purposes. Similar changes were occurring in parallel in other countries such as New Zealand, UK and the USA (Carr, 1990). It is now quite widely accepted that computers and multimedia technologies have an important role to play in the delivery of the curriculum in schools. However the potential of enhanced learning and the impact that computers could have on classroom teaching and learning are continues to be debated (Jenkins, 2000; Cummings, 1996; Settlage, 1995; Lockard et. al., 1994; Hawkins & Collins, 1993; Van Dusen & Worthen, 1993; Bork, 1992;Salomon et. al., 1991).

In Victoria, integrating Learning Technology into all key learning areas of every school’s curriculum has been a priority policy of the previous Victorian government (DoE) and still is with the DEET of the current government. Throughout most of the 1990s, the DoE initiated a range of programs and policies to ensure that learning technologies were embraced by all Victorian schools and teachers. In 1998 the

Learning Technologies in Victorian Schools 1998-2001 (http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/lt/init.htm) statement was released, a visionary document that explained the objectives and targets to be achieved, for example the installation of computers in the ratio of one computer to every 5 students in all government schools by the year 2000. Around the same time, a Notebook for Teachers Program aimed at providing notebook computers for up to 36,700 principals and teachers over five years was initiated. Hence over the last several years, large amounts of money have been provided to set schools up with computers and associated technologies. However the funding of research into groundwork that is required to provide understanding of how technologically enriched environments could bring about enhanced (if indeed so) learning has been very slow in coming.

In the area of science, a range of LT resources is available for use in the teaching and learning processes in the classroom. However, there has been little evaluation of the frequency, types and methodology of usage by science teachers or the effectiveness of these resources in the process of knowledge-construction in students. This study aims to identify where Victorian science teachers are currently at with the use of computer-based technology in their teaching.

For most of the 1990s, the term Learning Technologies (LT) has been used in Victoria. What constitutes learning technologies has been debated in schools among teachers and at curriculum committee meetings. In recent times and with a change in government, the term LT has been replaced by Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). However this study has retained the term LT for the reason that many teachers have not adopted the new terminology and are still using the terms 'LT' or 'computers' in their conversations to mean the same thing. The terms LT and ICT do not explicitly imply computers and Victorian teachers are well aware of this. This is well summed up by a teacher, interviewed during this research:

In this paper, we have used the term computer-based technology and/or LT but not ICT. The questionnaire that was used as the research tool in this study used the term LT, as teachers were familiar with this term to generally mean computers. This was indeed shown in the returns where majority of the respondents answered the open ended questions in terms of computers. Only a few returns indicated LT as being something other than computers or computer-based.

By computer-based technology we mean the hardware and software associated with displaying and/or processing data or information on the computer. Table 1 summarises the modes of computer use in the teaching and learning of science.

Activity	Hardware/software
Data Collection	Dataloggers, CBL, probes
Image Collection	Digital camera, digital microscope, QuickCam, scanner
Data conversion (analogue to digital)	Video capture device
Data Analysis	Spreadsheet (Excel), statistic packages, graphing software
Presentation	Word processor, printer, presentation software e.g Powerpoint, Flash ; Web authoring tools e.g Frontpage
Information Retrieval	World Wide Web, electronic encyclopaedia, CD ROMS
Communication and/or project collaboration	Email, chat rooms, discussion boards, ICQ, listserve
Concept development	Simulations: simulation programs, Java Applets, Excel Modeling: modeling programs, Java Applets, Excel Tutorial: drill and practice programs e.g Atoms, Symbols and Equations. Courseware: programs designed to cover a specific course e.g. CDs accompanying text books Concept Mapping: programs such as Inspiration, Smartdraw

This study uses quantitative as well as qualitative methods of data collection. The quantitative aspect involved the use of a questionnaire as the research tool while the qualitative aspect involved follow-up interviews and some class observations. The questionnaire (see Appendix1) asked teachers to identify:

• their attitude towards the use of computer-based technologies in science teaching

• the types and availability of computer-based resources for use in the teaching of science in their school
• those resources that they have found to be effective pedagogical tools in helping students learn science and how these resources have been used in their classes
• the kinds of professional development that they would like to have with regards to using computer-based technologies in science

The questionnaire was sent to 53 government high schools located mainly in the Southern Metropolitan Region of Victoria. Each school was sent between 2-4 questionnaires depending on the size of the school. A total of about 150 questionnaires were posted out. Data collected were quantitatively analysed and where teachers had indicated willingness to participate in follow-up interviews, they were conducted to obtain a more in-depth qualitative explanation of the attitudes of teachers towards the use of computer-based technologies in their classes.

The first question (A1, see Appendix 1) of the questionnaire asked participants to indicate the availability of computer resources for use in their science teaching and learning. Participants had the option of identifying their schools in the questionnaire. The majority of the questionnaires that were returned had their schools identified. There were 2 returns that did not identify schools, these data were not included in the processing of this question in case they were from schools that had identified themselves. If there was more than one return from a school, only one set of data is used by considering the following in cases of discrepancies:

• a number of the returns were incomplete for question 1; if there were 2 or more returns from a school, incomplete versions were ignored for question 1
• if there was more than one return with complete question 1 from a school, a comparison of the data was made and data that matched from 2 or more returns were used. Clarification if necessary, was obtained during the interviews.

For all other questions, responses were tallied and included in analyses.

A total of 57 returns from at least 33 schools was received. Twenty eight male teachers and 29 female teachers filled in the questionnare. A profile of the teachers who returned the questionnaire is shown in Table 2.

The total number of teachers subsequently interviewed was 20. A breakdown of the gender and teaching area is shown in Table 3. Of the 20 teachers interviewed, 9 held the Science Coordinator position at their school.

Table 3: Profile of teachers who participated in follow-up interviews.

The findings presented below are based on responses from the questionnaire and interviews. Wherever it is appropriate, quotes are used to support the findings. Quotes from interviews are indicated by (i/v) at the end of the quote; all other quotes are from questionnaire responses.

As shown in Table 4, 96% of the teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that learning technologies is an important part of learning science. This is consistent with teachers across all science disciplines irrespective of the amount of use of the technologies in their classes. Only one teacher disagreed with LT being an important part of learning science:

The reasons for perceiving that LT is an important part of learning science are various:

1. Scientists use computers for data analysis, communication and for disseminating information, therefore appropriate for students to use these tools.

Science isn’t very sciency without computers. You tend to associate computers with science and advances in computers are caused by advances in science, they are linked. Computers are important ‘cos scientists use them in their work. They are very good tools for recording data and also presentation of data in a whole lot of different ways, analysing and all the rest is much faster than by hand. (i/v)

 

2. Using computer-based technologies such as datalogging and simulations is important for modeling science. Modeling is an important part of science and computers are good for modelling things, for example nuclear testing using good simulation programs.

Modeling and storing data, computers are good for these, e.g. human genome sequence would not have been possible without computers. Synthesis of DNA for genetic engineering purposes (study and applications) are automated with computer programs providing the DNA synthesiser with exact concentrations and sequence of the bases to be stringed together (i/v)

 

3. The availability of vast amounts of up-to-date information on the World Wide Web is important in the teaching and learning of science.

The Internet provides far more up-to-date information than text – a lot of text books in schools are out of date. Teaching senior biology especially, new things are happening all the time and kids can access the information immediately. (i/v)

For me, it is important and will become increasingly important because books will not be able to keep up with the information, purely and simply access to information is important. (i/v)

 

4. The multimedia and interactive nature of software programs on CD-roms and on the World Wide Web assist with students’ learning of science. As shown in Table 4, 77% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that LT could enhance students’ understanding of science.

I think that LT could be an important part of learning science, I was thinking more like there is more up to date information that they (students) could get or interactive CD-roms.(i/v)

Yes, particularly with simulations. There are things that student can’t grasp and a pictorial form is a better way of looking at things.(i/v)

Yes, because there are so many different things that are on the Internet that a particular website might have something

that explains a topic in a more understandable way to a student or may give the exact bit of information that they

wanted.(i/v)

Sure, if you get good resources, you get good understanding. (i/v)

Depends on the type of use. It could enhance learning. (i/v)

Yes and no, kids can do things that are fun and not learn anything. At the moment it doesn’t always with lack of skills of teachers. Just like in prac work, they can do prac work and learn nothing or they can do prac work and learn a lot. So I think it is a matter of learning how to use the LT and that will come. Teachers will learn more if they are actually using the LT more effectively. So it should enhance understanding of science but at the moment with the lack of skills of teachers it doesn’t always. (i/v)

5. The computer motivates and caters for different learning abilities. As shown in Table 4, nearly 80% of teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that LT can motivate and cater for the wide range of abilities found in most classes. Many of the teachers interviewed agreed that students generally enjoy using the computer and with enjoyment comes motivation. The motivational factor in learning using computers has been well documented in numerous papers (Pedretti et al., 1998; Dywer, 1994; Nastasi & Clements, 1994; Kromhout & Butzin, 1993). Science teachers in this survey suggested the following as reasons for why students are motivated with learning from the computer:

However, a couple of teachers interviewed indicated that motivation is also dependent on the program design and how easy it is for students to learn the technical skills to use the program. Software programs that have complicated and non-user friendly interfaces will frustrate and deter students from learning and would encourage activities other than the one currently being delivered in the lesson. Teachers interviewed who disagreed that LT can motivate students to learn suggested the novelty factor that will wear off after a while. One teacher commented that students were still unable to keep focused on big tasks that took considerable amounts of time at the computer. It was still necessary to prepare worksheets with small, short tasks for the students to do. A couple of teachers commented that if students were poor in their cognitive ability and reading skills, reading in front of computer was no different from reading text from a book, hence making the computer ineffective in assisting with their learning.

Eighty percent of the teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that the presence of computer-based technologies changes the way science is being taught (see Table 4). In particular teachers believed that students of the current era relate to computers as part of their upbringing and being relevant in a technologically oriented society. In the homes of increasing numbers of students, computers play an essential role in students' recreation and learning.

With such ready access being possible, many teachers do not see themselves as knowledge providers anymore but as facilitators of learning. As evident from Table 4, 82% of the teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that LT provided readier access to information. One teacher interviewed commented that with the readily available information, students must be taught skills to verify the information they see in front of them. The most cited example to benefit most from the readily accessible and up-to-date information from the World Wide Web is the study of genetics where the technology is rapid and changing all the time.

Other ways in which LT changes the way science is taught in the classroom is the utilisation of software programs with mutlimedia and interactive functions that has the potential to cater for students' different interests and abilities. Simulation programs provide another dimension in the learning of abstract concepts of science. The time-saving and communicative capacity of computer-based technologies such as dataloggers in collecting data, spreadsheets in graphing, intranets and emailing systems within schools for teachers to distribute and collect information from students or other teachers will influence the way science is taught in the classroom.

In schools where the computer systems are somewhat unreliable or where science teachers cannot get access to computers easily, the integration of computer-based activities into science learning and teaching are still very much in the investigative stages.

The questionnaire asked science teachers to indicate if they used computer-based technologies regularly (a) in preparing for their classes and (b) in their science lessons. Regular usage in science lessons meant applying computer-based technologies in lessons where it was appropriate and one or more type of application per unit of work studied. It is considered irregular if usage is only for semester-based Internet research projects or for the purpose of satisfying students' desire to be taken into the computer room, or for the sake of using technology to satisfy school charter requirements and personal performance review purposes.

Table 4 shows that 72% of teachers said they used the computer on a regular basis for lesson preparation, with the main type of usage being for presentation purposes such as word processing worksheets and to a lesser extent powerpoints for delivery of lessons. Spreadsheets and database programs were the other less frequent modes of technology usage by science teachers for lesson preparation.

While most science teachers used the computer to prepare lessons, only about 41% used computer-based technologies regularly in the classroom for teaching and learning purposes. The most frequently used computer-based technology in the classroom is the Internet for research purposes by students undertaking an assignment or project.

The rather low level of regular usage in science classrooms was investigated in this study and a range of obstacles that prevented teachers from using these technologies in their teaching are identified below:

1. The availability of computer resources for science usage in schools

About 47% of the schools reported the unavailability of computers in their science classrooms while 35% reported having 4 or less computers (see Table 5). One school had a laptop program in some of the classes while another school did not have desktops in their science rooms but a set of 20 superseded laptops that

Table 5: Number of computers in science classrooms.

One school did not indicate if their science rooms had computers and the data in the table is calculated on the

basis of 32 schools instead of 33.

Number of computers in science classroom	Number of schools	Percentage of total number of schools surveyed
0	15	47 %
1	2	6 %
2	4	13 %
3	3	10 %
4	2	6 %
6	1	3 %
10 or more	4	13 %
20 old laptops	1	3 %

were housed in the science area and were available for use solely in science classes. Four schools had 10 or more computers in their science area, although it was not clear from the questionnarie (ring up?) if these computers were in all science classrooms in the school or in one room only. Most of the schools that had computers in the science classrooms had these networked with access to the Internet and some schools had printing facilities as well.

All schools surveyed indicated well resourced IT classrooms. Smaller schools have 2-3 IT rooms while bigger schools have 3-4 IT rooms, with one very large school reporting 7 IT rooms. However access to these rooms was often difficult as IT classes were timetabled in them and whatever spots that were left over had to be shared between classes in other key learning areas of the curriculum such as English, Mathematics or SOSE. Whether a science teacher could access an IT room depended on whether their classes were blocked against IT lessons. Many of the teachers who were interviewed indicated this lack of access to computers in either science rooms or IT labs as a major source of frustration that deterred them from planning lessons that use computer-based technologies. Other factors influencing the less than regular use of computer-based technologies in science classes were time and cost factors. These are discussed in the following sections.

The libraries of all the participating schools were quite well resourced with computers networked and access to the Internet and printing facilities available. Most schools had between 8-15 computers in their libraries for research and word processing purposes with one school reporting 30 computers in its library.

Many teachers expressed that availability of computers in the science classrooms or being able to get access to computers when they needed them would certainly encourage them to do more computer-based activities in science lessons. This is reflected in comments such as:

Don’t have access to machines.. but if you can use it the kids probably won't use the books as much, it would become another part of your repertoire of lessons. (i/v)

The school system is slow, kids get frustrated, the hardware is letting us down. If we had no problems with computers here I reckon everyone will be using it a hell of a lot more. (i/v)

The access is not available but if they are available I would be online and up to my eyeballs with technology. (i/v)

Doesn’t make sense, they are giving every teacher a computer to become computer literate yet teachers cannot transfer the knowledge and skills to students because they can’t get at them. At our place yes, the hardware is letting us down.(i/v)

There were different models set up by schools to cope with computer accessibility by classes whose discipline areas were not in Information Technology. One medium sized school had one of their two IT rooms not timetabled at all for IT classes while a couple of schools had a period a week for year 7 and 8 science classes timetabled into an IT room. Another school ensured that IT classes were not timetabled into the IT rooms for one period a week, leaving more spaces in the timetable for other classes to book into them.

Some science teachers who had no access to computers in the science classroom improvised by having a computer on a trolley which could easily be pushed into the science room and have information they wanted to show the class projected onto a wide screen using a data projector. Other teachers use their laptop instead of a computer on a trolley. In a similar way, another school had a computer on a trolley set up for datalogging use that could be pushed into the science classroom whenever the teacher needed it. One of the teachers used his laptop for a class project where experimental data from every group in the class was required to be entered into an Excel spreadsheet. He had the students take turns to come up to the laptop to do that. The data was then processed as a class. Another way of getting computers into the science classroom was having a set of portable laptops as one of the participating school had.

Despite these improvisations, issues such as the time required to book and set up the data projector or laptops, and the slowness of the computers/laptops were great deterrents to planning computer-based activities for science classes. As one teacher puts it:

I don’t use learning technology regularly in my lessons because I don’t have access to machines within the classroom Despite these 20 laptops, they are cumbersome to use. Because they are laptops you have to get them out of the cupboards and plug them in and that’s very different from having them sitting on the desk where you can turn around, turn the switch on and you use the machine. The setting up takes time and even when they are set up, because they are old laptops or maybe because the way the network is set up they don’t work quickly for the Internet. So the laptop there basically can be used for word processing, that kind of data analysis in Excel or to access slowly the Internet. They can’t be used for datalogging. They can be used for accessing the school’s library catalogue and potentially to access the schools CD roms which are on the school Intranet. Those things are also slow and because they are slow, kids get frustrated with them and they tend not to want to use it. (i/v)

2. The time factor

Almost all teachers interviewed expressed concerns about the extra workload put on them to investigate, plan and organise computer-based activities in their science lessons. Some teachers commented that the time spent on preparing these activities must demonstrate that they will produce the equivalent or better outcomes than what was being achieved without the use of these activities in their current teaching strategies. Teachers who have taught for a long period of time and who have been using resources built up over their years of teaching are more reluctant to invest the rather large amounts of time required to investigate, learn the skills and prepare computer-based activities for their classes.

I am not cynical as I’m not saying it (technology) won’t work. I’m saying it probably will work really well but in the setting I am in will it do at least the equivalent or better than what we are currently doing? So number 1, we have to be dissatisfied with the activities we are currently doing. Number 2, considering the cost, it has to be clearly a better result either more convenient for me to create the lesson like a 5 min preparation to produce 40 minutes of class time. That ratio, an 1:8 ratio would be fantastic so let’s do it. Currently I am on about a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio with most lesson preparation. But with technology I find it’s a 1:1 or 1:2 ratio, that is it takes an hour to prepare something that takes half an hour in class. If we include the preparation time it is probably regularly 2:1, that is it takes twice as long to prepare and clean up and follow up as it does to actually take to present. With that sort of workload there’s no way people beyond an enthusiastic will do LT. The standard teacher is pretty busy anyway, he’s not going to do LT if it’s got a preparation ratio of 2:1, it’s got to be 1:2 or less. It’s got to make life easier. (i/v)

We use technology as a teaching tool. I can think of ways of teaching most concepts well without using a computer. LT is not used regularly as software is expensive and it’s the time thing too If I want to use the Internet I want to research it first and the time to do that is limited so the time for me to find suitable ways of using it and suitable sites on the Internet is just limited. Its one of those things when I think about my lessons I would probably prepare less than 10 % , the rest I am running on previous knowledge and as in the last 20 years I have not used LT and LT lessons are something that I am preparing fresh, its one of that 10% of my lessons that I am actually doing from ground zero. A lot of the lessons are the lessons that I have taught before, and its only 10% of my lessons that are things that I do for the first time. Just time, I really don’t have time to do more. I do prac work more often than not with my year 7 and when I went to school we didn’t do prac work till we were in year10. I think it will be the same with LT, we use it occasionally now but I am sure it will pick up, yes, as more and more teachers try it out and as more and more ideas get thrown into it. (i/v)

There are so many activities to do in science that you don’t get to the simulations and the datalogging as well.

 

3. The cost factor

Interviews with science coordinators from several small to medium sized schools indicated that the science budgets in their schools were beyond their means to purchase much computer-based resources. The relatively high costs of equipment such as datalogging units and probes or software packages and site licenses would eat too much into their budgets, the bulk of which was spent on photocopying and purchasing consumables for practical activities. The availability of the Science Equipment and Science Professional Development funds from DEET last year provided the means for some schools to purchase limited computer-based resources, with datalogging units being the more popular resource to be purchased.

Teachers don’t use LT that much because of lack of quality instruments and cost

Lessons are stop-start and must be teacher demonstrated – students can’t do them themselves, they just look because there is only one (equipment) in a class as it is too expensive for class sets. We have gone for variety of LT rather than quantity

 

4. The lack of skills and knowledge of applications using computer-based technologies

The Notebook for Teachers Program initiative where every government school teacher is provided with a notebook computer to assist them with becoming more computer literate and competent has paid off to a certain extent as this study has shown that most science teachers use the computer on a regular basis to prepare worksheets, keep records and write reports. However these more administrative type of skills are quite different from those required for using science related technologies. This study has found that the science-based technology skills such as those for using dataloggers or software programs such as Crocodile Clips varied quite considerably amongst the respondents.

Datalogging, I've made several attempts to master it but the technology changes so rapidly that probes become obsolete or software becomes superseded. If you are not using it weekly or so, it's too much effort to come to grips with

Require PD in datalogging equipment, technical aspects of how to use equipment and simple practical ideas of how to extend their use in a range of applications across year levels

Need to know applications on how to use LT specifically in the classroom. being kept up-to-date on new LT as they are developed.

I’ve downloaded the popular crocodile clips trial version and spent quite a lot of time playing with it and did not find it easy for me to use. And I thought if I am not having so much success, neither will the kids. Maybe the demo is too small but I am not happy with it, I am not going to go off to get it. It takes a lot of my time. I am reluctant to use it because I am not finding it easy to use. (i/v)

Crocodile Clips is excellent to support theory and prac, not instead of

 

 

5. The lack of suitable software

Cost is not the only deterring factor in purchasing science software. Science coordinators and teachers were reluctant to purchase software for reasons such as non user-friendliness of packages, and that many are targeted at the senior levels.

I've looked at quite a few CD roms and some of them aren't any good. Like this Insecta one, the kids might have looked at a good book and might have got there quicker and easier. All it really was looking at the screen instead of looking at a book and it's exactly the same. It was harder to read from the screen. I would really like kids to use the computer if there were really interactive stuff or if the kids use it to present things in different format. (i/v)

I can tell you now that the kind of software packages that will work are the ones that the teachers can also use. One that the teacher can already use easily – if a teacher can use it easily then they are more likely to use it. If they have to go off and spend hours and hours and hours trying to learn how to use it they’ll find other things to do with their time. (i/v)

I have concerns with the software which run and computers often have bugs in the programming which makes it hard to smoothly conduct its use

I have looked at the brochures, a lot of the software is aimed at years 11 and 12 and I looked at the complexity of the software and if I try to bring it down to year 10 or 9 the students are not going to gain anything from it. They need to have the theoretical background. (i/v)

A few teachers have written their own programs for their students to use. One of the teachers interviewed had written some simple drill and practice programs for junior science and mathematics students using the Visual Basic programming language. Examples of interactive programs that he has written included pH:Acids and Bases, Resistance in Series and Parallel and Electronic Configuration in Atoms. He has written these programs out of interest and has given them out freely to other science staff in the school to use with their students. He believed that there is not a lot of good science software around because there is no money to make in software writing/designing in science. In comparison he thought that there is a bigger market for mathematics software, especially the tutorial and drill and practice type where parents were more willing to impart with money to purchase them for their children.

 

6. Management issues

One of the reasons for not using computer-based technologies regularly in science lessons is the issue of classroom management. While the majority of teachers surveyed thought that technology would motivate students to learn, they still have to be vigilant with what students were doing with the computers while sitting in front of them. Some teachers interviewed thought that students in the junior levels (years 7-10) related better to the more hands-on kinesthetic style of learning rather than sitting in front of computers. The management issue becomes exacerbated when the computers were slow with downloading materials from the Internet or the interface of software designs too difficult for students to master and use.

Another issue with managing technology-based activities was the lack of sufficient equipment, such as datalogging units, probes, digital cameras, digital microscopes or robotics sets, to go around the class. Teachers have expressed interest in learning how their peers have successfully implemented activities using the minimum amount of equipment. Data from the questionnarie indicated that schools which reported having datalogging units or digital microscopes have only one or two units of each. From the interviews, it appeared that demonstrations where the data/image collected is projected onto a screen would be the best option if teachers were to engage the whole class simultaneously. Other teachers had several activities running at the same time and students rotate around to get hands-on experience with the equipment. Whether it was setting up a demonstration or planning a few activities running at the same time, it had meant substantial input of time on the teachers' part to implement them.

Several of the teachers interviewed displayed some anger and resentment with the lack of concern and investment into computer-based technologies by their adminstrations. At least two of the schools indicated that students had to pay for the use of the Internet and that it was not unusual that a number do not, hence adding to the classroom management problems especially in the IT room. Likewise when students do not get their parents to sign the agreement form on proper conduct in using computers, they cannot get access to using the resources on the Internet. The latter situation was less of a problem.

Participants in the study were asked to respond to the following in the questionnaire as well as in the interviews:

1. Use of specific technologies - datalogging units (including CBLs), digital camera, digital microscope, Quickcam and video capture devices in their teaching and the activities carried out with them
2. State the availability of science software programs (electronic encyclopaedia, drill and practice, tutorial, simulations) in their schools
3. Indicate those computer-based technologies in their teaching that they have found to be particularly effective in helping students learn science concepts and comment on how they have used these technologies in their lessons
4. Their perceptions of simulations as pedagogical tools for science learning and teaching

1. Use of specific technologies.

Datalogging is the most used computer-based tool amongst the respondents to the questionnaire of this study. About 50% of the schools in this study had datalogging or CBL units, with most having only one unit. Table 6 shows the activities carried out with the technologies of datalogging, digital camera, digital microscope, Quickcam and video capture device. The latter four devices are all imaging capturing devices. Each of them has its advantages and limitations and would be chosen to be used in different contexts.

1. Availability of electronic encyclopaedia and science software programs

All schools surveyed have electronic encyclopaedia in their network systems. Schools have one or more of the following electronic encyclopaedia: Encarta, Britannica, World Book, Grolier and Websters with Encarta being the most popular one. Fifty-three percent of schools indicated that they have simulations of at least one type with Crocodile Clips and Genetics software being the most popular. Very few schools have drill and practice (e.g. balancing chemical equations, using formulae to do numerical problems) or tutorial (for purposes of mastering content, grasping basic concepts ) types of programs. The availability and types of science software programs in the schools surveyed is summarised in Table 7.

 

Table 7. Types of electronic encyclopaedia and science software programs in schools.

Electronic Encyclopaedia	Range of Software/Simulations reported	Drill & Practice / Tutorial	Others
Britannica Encarta Grolier Websters World Book	Astronomy Baywatch Bohr atom CD -rom package accompanying text Crocodile clips DNA molecule of life Earth orbits Java applets Natural selection Newbyte programs: Pea plant genetics, Drosophilia genetics, Enzyme lab Particles and Interactions Pintar software demo series (molecules, electronics, electricity, wave) Robotics – lego technic control lab and robo lab Rock platform Solar system Starprobe Voyager plus World in Motion Yates horticultural database	Balancing equations CD roms that accompany text books Human Body Insecta Light Rocks and Minerals VCE physics (Scott software World of chemistry World of light	Flash 4 Frontpage (web authoring tool) Graphmatica Inspiration (concept mapping) Sound analysis

 

 

2. Perceptions of effectiveness of computer-based technologies in science teaching and learning

Sections B2 and B3 of the questionnaire (see Appendix 1) asked teachers to indicate those computer-based technologies that they have found to be particularly effective in helping students learn science concepts and to comment on how they have used these technologies in their lessons. These sections of the questionnaire were filled in by less than half the respondents and in some cases there were some inconsistencies with what was written in the questionnaire and what was said in the interviews. For instance some teachers indicated the use of certain technologies in their questionnaire but could not elaborate on them in the interviews. In many cases there were little evaluation on how students have used the technologies to learn, what has been learnt and the level of understanding achieved as a result of exposure to computer-based technologies. Hence to deem any computer-based technology as particularly effective in helping students to construct conceptual understanding would be somewhat superficial without a well considered method of evaluation.

Table 8 is a summary of the computer-based technologies that science teachers believed to be effective in assisting students learn science concepts. What constituted 'effective' differed with teachers. One teacher did not see technology itself as being effective in helping students learn and that it was up to the teacher who managed the learning to decide how technology could produce effective learning by considering how the technology is to be used and what it is to be used for.

Other teachers were of the opinion that technology motivate students and when students are motivated they will learn better and more effectively. Another teacher thought that the worst and totally useless use of technology is reading text off the screen and the best use would be:

There were other science teachers who agreed that reading text off the screen could be more difficult for students than reading off a book and that too much text would disadvantage students whose literacy skills are inadequate such as those from an ESL background. However, a substantial number of the teachers in this study saw web-based research on the Internet as an effective way for students to learn. But we know that many of the websites with science information are in fact heavily text-based. Hence here lies some discrepancies in opinions between science teachers. Our earlier research (Ng & Gunstone, submitted for publication) has indicated that the World Wide Web as a research tool is ineffective unless students are equipped with good web search and evaluative skills.

Presentations using powerpoints have been regarded by at least one teacher to be ‘a waste of time’ while many others thought them to be very effective in probing students understanding of the work being undertaken.

Other teachers however swore by the usefulness of students presenting work as powerpoints. The effectiveness is seen to be increased when the presentation is accompanied by oral presentation.

Most teachers generally favour a one-student one-computer stance for effective learning in a technology enhanced learning environment.

However research (Tao and Gunstone, 1999; Pedretti et.al.,1998; Scholfield et.al.; Slaomon, 1992) has shown that even in a technology based environment learning takes place best when there is collaboration and dialogue between students.

Table 4 shows that less than half (41%) of the teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that simulations can take the place of practical work. The interviews drew out a cautionary note from some of these teachers that simulations could take the place of practical work in circumstances where there is lack of equipment or where there is no way the experiment could be done within practical contexts in the classroom.

All teachers interviewed, regardless of the stance they took of simulations replacing practical work, saw practical work as still very important in the teaching and learning of science. The notion often pushed by software designers and some bureaucrats and educators that simulations is a clean way of doing experiments where consideration of safety issues becomes unnecessary did not go down well with science teachers, many of whom indicated in the questionnaires and interviews that students "getting their hands dirty" is what science is all about. The general view was that the acquisition of skills and processes in the study of science is very important and that simulations have a part to play in complementing or supplementing the practical aspects of learning. Below are some comments by teachers:

In Victoria, all government schools are expected to embrace within their curriculum planning the Curriculum and Standards Framework (CSF) document that describes what students from Preparatory year to Year 10 should know and be able to do in each of the eight key learning areas of the curriculum. It outlines the major elements of the curriculum and the expected outcomes and indicators for Victorian students. A revised version of the CSF, now called CSF II (http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/csfcd/ov/ov.htm) was implemented in 2000.

Sofweb is a website (http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/) that was initiated and launched in 1992 by the then Department of Education of Victoria. It is an educational resource centre for teachers, students, school leaders and parents where information and activities are provided to support teaching and learning. Also available on Sofweb are resources for professional development and improving leadership skills programs.

Both the CSF II document and the Sofweb website are resources that are available to science teachers to support them in their teaching of science in the classroom. Provided in these 2 resources is support for implementing and using LT in science (and other key learning area) lessons. The survey in this study asked science teachers to indicate if they thought CSF II or Sofweb provided helpful support for LT in their science teaching. As shown in Table 4, the responses to both questions are somewhat mixed. Less than half the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the Department's resources provided helpful support for LT in science while more than half disagreed, strongly disagreed, or did not know if the CSF II and Sofweb website provided helpful support for LT in science.

For those who agreed/strongly agreed that CSF II was helpful the only reason, as provided by several teachers in interviews, was that there were little icons in the document that suggested ideas for LT activities for example:

However those who disagreed, strongly disagreed or did not know had the following to say:

Likewise with Sofweb, those who agreed or strongly agreed that Sofweb provided helpful support for LT in science could only cite the Alphabetic Listing of Science Resources page (http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/resource/ressci.htm) as being useful.

However, many of the teachers interviewed have not looked at the website to know what Sofweb had to offer. Several teachers commented on the difficulty in navigating around the site and that put them off looking further at what was available.

Professional development in datalogging is most requested by respondents to this question with some 41% of them asking for professional development in this area.

A broad spectrum of other professional development were also requested, in particular to be aware of useful software programs and activities that have worked in other classes:

It was in the mid-1990s that the growth of computers in Victorian schools surged. In 1995, the government of the time invested some 10 million dollars to set up 4 primary and 3 secondary Navigator schools. In the government document Navigator Schools Project (http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/navschls/pdfs/Nav30_1.pdf), the objective of these schools were stated as:

• create a network of exemplar schools with accessible models of new learning environments where there is access to technology in every classroom
• share with others what is learned in creating those learning environments
• providing evidence of additional teaching and learning outcomes in a technology rich environment, and
• provide a premium professional development resource for teachers and principals across the state.

In 1998, the release of the Learning Technologies in Victorian Schools 1998-2001 statement (Executive Overview, http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/lt/init.htm) provided a plan as well as targets to be achieved by schools by 2001. The objective outlined in the statement was that by the year 2001 all Victorian schools would have implemented in their school charter, a Learning Technologies Plan, which resulted in principals, staff and students:

• having access to computer, a range of applications and curriculum products and regularly using online information and communications as part of the school's educational and operational program
• being routine, competent and discriminating users of learning technologies in the daily programs of the school
• developing skills in the use of a range of technology tools
• showing leadership and innovation in the use of learning technologies.

The statement indicated the provision of $80 million over the 4 years to assist schools to provide access to computer facilities, the establishment of a Wide Area Network (VicOne) connecting all schools by June 1998 and the development of a Digital Resource Centre to deliver multimedia curriculum resources. In terms of professional development, the statement made available $56 million dollars over 4 years to support teacher professional development in learning technologies. The Navigator Schools, the Leadership and Management Section of the Sofweb site and self-paced training packages would be available to support teachers' technological skill development. In addition $500,000 was made available to establish a Software Rolling Fund program, the aim of which is to negotiate discounts on or bulk purchase software that are widely used in Victorian educational institutions. Also stated in the statement were the inclusion of 'an understanding of and commitment to the use of learning technologies' in the selection criteria for Principal Class selection as well as 'learning technologies understanding and use' to be part of the annual review and performance management process for school staff from the start of 1999.

In 1998, the Department announced a $100 million initiative to provide each of the 36,700 government school principals and teachers with a notebook computer within 5 years (The Age newspaper, October 23, 1998). The main aim of this budget initiative was to support and encourage principals and teachers to effectively integrate the use of learning technologies into the classroom and administrative practices of the schools. In return for receiving a notebook computer, principals and teachers were expected to demonstrate a commitment to ongoing professional development that mounted up to 40 hours.

These obstacles are not separate entities that when one obstacle is addressed the implementation automatically falls in place and running computer-based activities become smooth and trouble free. These obstacles are interdependent like a ‘chain’ where a broken linkage at any one point would produce negative effect. Indeed the successful implementation of computer-based technologies in science classes is dependent on all obstacles being addressed.

Firstly there must be support from administration, both government and local to ensure adequate equipment is available for use in the classroom. This means sufficient number of computers either for individual use or small groups of 2-3 students. It also means sufficient number of datalogging sets, digital microscopes or robotics sets for the class of how ever many students to use. If sufficient equipment is reliant only on science budgets alone, it will be a long time (or perhaps never) before teachers at government schools implement computer-based technologies in science lessons on a regular basis.

Secondly science teachers must be provided with support to develop confidence and competency with technical skills in handling hardware and software associated with the different science-based technologies. Time for professional development to learn the skills and time to practice them are pertinent to the effective implementation of computer-based technologies in the classroom. The time factor as an obstacle is further exacerbated by the fact that almost a whole new set of skills is required for each of the hardware or software available for science usage. Currently there does not appear to be much commonality between the designs of the science software packages that are available. To further encourage and assist teachers to use technology, ready to use materials with clear instructions and detailed worksheets for students’ use should be made available especially to novice users. Principals must support teachers in this respect by making available time release and financial support for teachers to attend professional development workshops.

Thirdly it is only when the issues of resource availability, confidence of teachers and ease of use of hardware/software are resolved that classroom management does not become an issue. Effective learning can only take place when both students and teachers are comfortable with handling the program at hand, assuming that the program at hand is a properly designed pedagogical tool for science.

If all of the above are not put in place, the chances of teachers using computer-based technologies in their science classrooms would be minimal and related to low level thinking tasks such as using word processing and web search in an ad hoc manner.

Victoria is not alone in the current status of science teachers and computer-based technologies. Similar irregular usage have been observed in UK schools (McKinsey, 1779; Stevenson, 1997; Ofsted report, 2001) and obstacles such as those experienced by Victorian science teachers are also common with UK science teachers (Tebbutt, 2000).

Several science teachers have made the analogy of computers with the whiteboard or other laboratory equipment such as the Van der Graaf generator. Just like any other laboratory equipment, the computer is another tool, another strategy that could be used to assist with students’ learning. The similarity between the computer and other laboratory tools is that they are all hardware and all hardware work in specific manners. But the computer has software in it. The software provides feedback and interaction between the user and the hardware. In that sense it is a more powerful and sophisticated piece of hardware. Students can be more creative and individualistic with their work, for example in producing a powerpoint or a webpage, hyperlinks are powerful options that allow a presentation to be neat, systematic and could encompass different dimensions such as audio and video options. The computer is the interface between students and vast amount of information and communicative resources on the Internet. It is capable of collecting and analysing data quickly and has the capacity to make predictions based on given data or results. Hence there is enormous potential in the computer to assist students in learning science concepts. This greater capacity however requires more skills to be learnt on both the teacher and students’ part if they are to use it effectively in their science lessons.

When students use technology in the science classroom are they spending more time learning the technical skills to use the software or are they spending the time effectively learning science concepts by drawing on the potential that the software could offer? There is much concern related to this as the pressure to get through the designated syllabus meant that only limited amounts of time could be set aside for developing these technical skills. An integrated approach would be ideal where some of the more generic IT skills such as web search skills and spreadsheet use are learnt in IT classes. However, students and teachers alike will forget how to use a specific utility unless they use it often enough.

Using technology and learning the skills associated with its use increases the amount of thinking on the students’ part in addition to the thinking of the science itself. This increase of mental processing often leads to cognitive overload. Depending on the design of the program and the user-friendliness of the program, cognitive overload could produce ineffective learning. As Plowman (1998) puts it:

Well designed software packages has the potential of self-paced learning where learning and interaction takes place essentially between the student and the computer. Self-paced learning is not new. In the 1960s, the Junior Secondary Science Project (JSSP) had units of self-paced learning units in the form of cards instead of on a computer. Teachers became record keepers and moved away from management, not in terms of student behaviour but with learning. It was difficult to keep direct track on what students were learning and students could slip through with pretence or copying from others. Teacher control on what students were learning was difficult and often chaotic.

In a computer-enhanced learning environment, similar issues could surface. While teachers should welcome the self-paced learning as a means for students to advance at their own rate, the reality is that many teachers often do not feel comfortable or confident enough to deal with students working at many different levels. As every student should be able to do something in front of a computer, the type of learning become more diverse and the levels of achievement much more spread out. Teachers cannot control learning as in the traditional method of teaching and the implication would be that they have to have a good knowledge of the unit under study in order to keep pace with the different levels that students are at.

The full potential of computer-based technologies and science learning is a long way yet from being realised and only more systematic research will uncover that. Support and funds from the government to conduct more in-depth research is necessary to unveil the effective usage with computer-based technologies in science teaching and learning, including the differences in these uses across the different discipline areas of science – Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Psychology and Environmental Science.

The government initiatives on learning technologies over the last few years have been well meaning. Support in terms of provision of computers to schools has been good and they are pretty much on track with achieving their goal of a ratio of one computer to every five student across all government schools. In recent years DEET has made a strong commitment to Science, Technology and Innovation in Victorian schools with the Science in Schools strategy which has been initiated with the following aims:

• to support teachers to provide exciting and innovative learning experiences for students in order to improve the teaching and learning of Science
• to increase the level of scientific literacy of young Victorians
• to improve student attitude to the learning of Science
• to encourage more students to study post-compulsory Science and consider Science as a career.

A range of science curriculum resources and professional development programs have been developed by the Department to address these aims. The use of multimedia technologies in the development of many of these curriculum resources has been emphasised and these resources are all available on CD-roms or online. To use these resources, science teachers will have to access the computer to browse through the CD-roms or the Science in Schools website, a good way to encourage teachers to use technology.

However the Department and school administrations have to go further with provision of more funds to science faculties to refurbish science laboratories to accommodate computers and to purchase sufficient amount of computer based equipment for the effective running of computer-based activities in classes. There are structural and storage problems associated with having computers in the science classrooms in the current settings. Existing science laboratories in schools have not been designed for accommodating computers. It seems inevitable that if computers are to make a presence in science classrooms, there need to be redesigning and refurbishment of the existing set-ups..

Science teachers have acknowledged the importance of computer-based technologies in science teaching and learning. By now, they have had a period of several years to try the technologies out. Most teachers feel comfortable with technology for their own personal use and the Notebook for Teachers Program has to be credited for that. But the range of skills and confidence with science based technologies amongst teachers between and within schools is still wide. The variation between schools in the application of these technologies is currently still large. Similar variation exists between teachers using the technologies within the same school. With the money and resources that has been put into technologies, teachers have to be adequately resourced as well. At the moment the state of use of computer-based technologies in science classes is like the saying that goes 'three-miles wide, half an inch deep'. Decision makers must ensure that the appropriate support that teachers require are provided to alleviate this superficiality.

Finally, advocates of computers in science teaching and learning talks beyond the motivational factor for using them with students but are enthusiastic about the potential of the machines in assisting with learning and teaching. The comment made below by one of the teachers interviewed sums up the ‘wishes’ of these advocates:

Bork, A. (1992). Learning in the twenty-first century: Interactive multimedia technology. In M.Giardina (ed), Interactive multimedia learning environments: Human factors and technical considerations on design issues. 93, 2-18.

Carr, W. (1990). Computer education and the curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 22 (1) 57-76

Cummings, L.E. (1996). Educational technology – a faculty resistance view. Part II: Challenges of resources, technology and tradition. Educational Technology Review, 5, 18-20

Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: What we’ve learned. Educational Leadership, 51(7), 4-10.

Hawkins, J. & Collins, A. (1993). Design experiments for infusing technology into learning. In G.D.Bailey (Ed.). Computer based integrated learning systems p23-35. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technology Publications.

Jenkins, J (2000). ICT and the changing role of the teacher. Workshop on 'Application of the new information and communication technologies in lifelong learning'. The Europe of cultural cooperation, Catania, Italy.

http://culture.coe.fr/her/eng/catania.jenkins.uk.htm

Kromhout, O.& Butzin, S. (1993). Integrating computers into the elementary school curriculum. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26 (1), 55-69.

Lockhard, J., Abrams, P.D. & Many, W.A. (1994). Microcomputers for twenty first century educators (3^rd ed). New York: Harper Collins.

McKinsey & Company. 1997. The Future of Information Technology in UK Schools. London: McMinsey and Company).

Nastasi, B. K., & Clements, D. H. (1994). Effectance motivation, perceived scholastic competence, and higher-order thinking in two cooperative computer environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(3), 249-275.

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2001). ICT in schools: the impact of government initiatives.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/public/docs01/ictreport.pdf

Pedretti, E., Mayer-Smith, J., & Woodrow, J. (1998) Technology, Text and Talk: Students’ learning in a technology enhanced secondary science classroom. Science Education, 82, 569-589.

Plowman, L. (1998). Getting sidetracked: cognitive overload, narrative, and interactive learning environments. Proceedings of UNESCO/Open University International Colloquium, Milton Keynes, UK, April 1997. http://meno.open.ac.uk/lydiacog.html

Salomon, G., Perkins, D.N., & Gloerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intellectual technologies. Educational Researcher, 20, 2-9.

Salomon, G (1992) New challenges for eduacational research: Studying the individual within the learning environments. Scandinavian Journal of Education, 36, 167-182

Schofield, J.W., Eurich-Fulcer & Britt, C.L. (1994) New theoretical insights suggest new approaches to research: A rejoinder to Davis. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 619-625

Settlage, J. (1995). Children’s conceptions of light in the context of a technology-based curriculum. Science Education. 79(5), 535-553.

Stevenson, D. (1997) Information and Communications Technology in UK schools. An independent inquiry. London: The independent ICT in schools commision.

http://rubble.ultralab.anglia.ac.uk/stevenson/

Tao; P.K & Gunstone, R. F. (1999), Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 21(1), 39-57.

Tebbutt, M. (2000). ICT in science: problems, possibilities… and principles? School Science Review, 81 (297), 57-64.

Van Dusen, L.M. & Worthen, B. R. (1993). Factors that facilitate or impede implementation of integrated learning systems. In G.D.Bailey (Ed.). Computer based integrated learning systems p35-48. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technology Publications.

PART D: Respondent Information (tick the appropriate boxes)

1. In setting science projects/assignments for your students, do you usually (please tick)

3. If students use the computers only to do research for a project, how many periods do you

usually allocate for them to do that?

 

---

4. Do you think that the Internet as a research tool provides useful and suitable resources for

students to use?

 

---

---

 

5. Please indicate below the topics that you have given your students to research on the Internet.

Year Level	Topic(s)
7
8
9
10

 

 

6. Any other comments that you may wish to make with regards to using computer-based technologies (Internet and electronic encyclopaedia) as a research tool.