1
MIDDLE SCHOOL CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ USE OF
TECHNOLOGICAL TOOLS TO TEACH SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Scientific inquiry skills have been taught in middle school science classrooms in a
variety of ways (Williams, Nguyen, & Mangan, 2017). However, middle school science
teachers have struggled with knowing which technological tools are efficient for teaching
them (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015; Liu, Wang, Zhang, & Yan, 2017). Teachers can be
successful implementing technology when they know how to use technology
appropriately (McKnight et al., 2016). Thus, this qualitative case study was designed to
provide data that can help science teachers select and use preeminent technologies when
teaching scientific inquiry skills in the classroom. This study may foster positive social
change by justifying the use of technology when scientific inquiry skills are taught in the
middle school classroom.
In this chapter, I describe the literature—and the gap in the knowledge—on using
technology to teach scientific inquiry skills. I state the research questions and identify
and define the conceptual framework. The nature of the study is provided as well as
important definitions. The assumptions, scope and delimitations, limitations, and
significance of the research study are also discussed. I then summarize the main points of
this chapter as I move to Chapter 2.
Background
Various terms have been used to describe scientific inquiry in education. For
example, Fraser (2017) defined scientific inquiry skills as inquiry-based teaching. Yuksel
2
(2019) defined them as using appropriate techniques and methods to develop and nurture
the science development of reasoning skills, specifically used the term scientific
reasoning skills. Williams et al. (2017) defined these skills as process skills in science.
For this study, I used the term scientific inquiry skills.
In addition to various terms used, scientific inquiry is being taught in various
ways. The traditional hands-on approach is beginning to be replaced with technology that
engages students and teaches scientific inquiry process skills (Williams et al., 2017).
Twenty-first century middle school science classrooms have changed with the placement
of technological tools such as desktop and laptop computers; they teach lessons with
different strategies and technological activities (Lehtinen & Viiri, 2017; McKnight et al.,
2016). But middle school science teachers who have used technology in the classroom
have different strengths and weaknesses when using them (Minshew & Anderson, 2015).
Thus, schools, school districts, and technology driven companies have offered teachers
training, support, and modeling to help them sustain the use of technology (Bilici, Guzey,
& Yamak, 2016). As technology training has increased, the use of technology in the
middle school classroom has improved (Rutten, van der Veen, & van Joolingen, 2015).
Nevertheless, there are no nationally known databases where science teachers can find
information about how other teachers use technology to teach scientific inquiry skills;
therefore, teachers depend on other teachers to reveal their best practices and strategies to
assist each other (McKnight et al., 2016). This study was conducted to gather information
about how middle school science teachers use technology in the classroom to teach
scientific inquiry skills.
3
Problem Statement
The problem addressed in this qualitative case study was that even though
technology and technological tools are increasingly used to teach scientific inquiry skills
in middle school classrooms, knowledge has been lacking as to teachers’ best practices
for making their teaching more meaningful. Schools have placed a variety of
technological devices in classrooms for teachers to teach technology-rich lessons (Bilici
et al., 2016; McKnight et al., 2016; Rutten et al., 2015). But teachers have been unsure of
which technology works best to teach specific scientific inquiry skills, especially with no
database on which tools that might fit the content of a lesson (Lehtinen & Viiri, 2017;
McKnight et al., 2016). Thus, more information is needed about best practices (Kihoza,
Zlotnikova, Bada, & Kalegele, 2016; Liu et al., 2017). To identify different technological
tools and strategies for teaching scientific inquiry skills, this study gathered best practices
from middle school science teachers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to gather information about the
technological tools that could be adopted to make the teaching of scientific inquiry skills
in middle school science classrooms more meaningful and gainful to students. Teaching
with different technological tools requires teachers to have basic knowledge of
technology (Kihoza et al., 2016), so can integrate new technology into their practice and
make the students engage in learning (McKnight et al., 2016). The focus of this study was
to discover the technological tools that have been adopted in the teaching process to make
student learning more meaningful and productive.
4
Research Questions
The following four research questions guided the study:
RQ1: What strategies do middle school science teachers adopt when using
technology to teach science in the middle school classroom?
RQ2: What are the technological tools that middle school science teachers use to
teach scientific inquiry skills, and which of these tools do teachers perceive to be more
meaningful?
RQ3: Do the teachers feel that they are quite competent in their pedagogical
knowledge to use the technological tools and strategies they adopt to cover the content
that is used in the middle school classroom?
RQ4: What are the negative and positive factors that are related to their usage of
technological tools and strategies when teaching science in the middle school classroom?
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this case study was the technological, pedagogical,
and content knowledge (TPACK) model, which was conceptualized by Mishra and
Koehler in 2006. (Other frameworks considered are noted in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.)
There are three main components in this framework: content knowledge, technology
knowledge and pedagogy knowledge (Koi, Chai, & Lee, 2015). Learning is the
foundation to broaden knowledge, understand scientific investigation, and implement
efficient teaching methods for science (Luthfia & Atun, 2018). The TPACK model can be
used to improve scientific literacy skills because the model combines content knowledge,
pedagogy knowledge, and technology knowledge (Luthfia & Atun, 2018).
5
Further, the skills needed to successfully teach technology in the classroom can be
acquired with the TPACK model (Koi et al., 2015).
In this case study, I used the components of the TPACK model to explore how
middle school science teachers used pedagogy to incorporate technology into their
content. The components of the model were used to create interview questions that
describe how well middle school science teachers adopted technology to teach scientific
inquiry skills. The TPACK model was used in three ways. First, it was used to explore the
teachers’ content knowledge (i.e., strategies for different objectives), where the focus was
on the curriculum. Second, it was used to explore the technology knowledge (i.e.,
technological tools incorporated into teaching practices) of the teachers, with emphasis on
the type of devices used in the classroom. Third, the TPACK model was used to explore
the pedagogical knowledge of the teachers, with an emphasis on the teacher’s knowledge
of educational strategies and guidelines that were important to the learner. The middle
school teachers shared their confidence with using technology to teach scientific inquiry
skills. They shared the positive and negative factors they experienced with using
technology and incorporating technology into their classroom. The TPACK model is
further explained in Chapter 2.
Nature of the Study
A qualitative case study design was used for this research study. The case study
design answers the how questions, which is a good approach when the phenomenon under
study is not distinguishable from its context (Hilton, 2016; Tokmak, 2015;
6
Williams, et al., 2017). The case study approach also involves an intensive review of one
or a few subjects to understand the larger group of interest and to gain a holistic view of
the research issues and problems (Krusenvik, 2016). The case study approach was used to
identify the best practices that middle school science teachers used with technological tools
that they adopted to teach scientific inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms.
These teachers have used different technological tools to teach the different objectives of
scientific inquiry skills (McKnight et at., 2016; Williams et al., 2017), but positive and
negative factors have affected their ability to use technology. Other researchers have used
the case study approach to document how teachers have used technology in the classroom
as well as their experiences and perceptions using technology to teach scientific inquiry
skills in the classroom (McKnight et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2017).
I interviewed middle school science teachers about their technology use in the
classroom to teach scientific inquiry skills. The only criterion required for participating in
this study was working as a middle school science teacher at the selected research site
and using technology in their classroom for at least a year. The collected data were
analyzed and coded to identify the resulting themes.
Definitions
The following definitions, as found in the literature, are related to this case study.
Case study: A process of using in-depth questioning or examination (Williams et
al., 2017). The researcher observer questioned the teacher’s plan working with the
students.
Content knowledge: An integrated form of knowledge with pedagogical
knowledge and technology knowledge that together makes TPACK (Koi et al., 2015).
7
Content knowledge is the content that teachers study specifically like Science, Math,
Social Studies, or English.
Information and communication technology (ICT)-based learning: Twenty-first
century tool used to support cognitive, metacognitive, and epistemic learning. (Koi et al.,
2015). ICT- based learning is using technology to teach.
National Science Education Standards (NSES): A set of standards used by science
teachers to teach inquiry and use technology (Weintrop et al., 2016). The NSES standards
area set of national science standards used by teachers to teach science, scientific inquiry
skills, and incorporate technology into the process.
Next Generation Science Standards: Science standards where emphasis is placed
on authentic investigation in the classroom (Weintrop et al., 2016). The Next Generation
Science Standards are the new science standards with an emphasis on investigating and
solving problems.
Pedagogical content knowledge: The ability of a teacher to pedagogically adapt
content to diverse student populations. (Kihoza et al., 2016). This knowledge refers to the
blending of pedagogy and content knowledge together to teach students.
Pedagogical knowledge: An integrated form of knowledge with content
knowledge and technology knowledge that together makes TPACK (Koi et al., 2015).
Pedagogical knowledge is how teachers understand how to teach students.
Process skills: Scientific concepts such as erosion and hypothesis testing
(Williams et al., 2017). Process skills were the basic scientific content that were needed to
learn and understand science.
8
Qualitative research: Scientific data collected by observation and interviews (Liu
et al., 2017). Video observation was used to record and observe classroom teachers.
Substitute, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (SAMR): A conceptual
framework used to plan, assess, and evaluate technology use in the classroom (Kihoza et
al., 2016). SAMR is a framework that can be used to assess the use of technology in the
classroom.
Scientific inquiry skills: Scientific inquiry skills is the teaching of process skills in
science. Teachers teach scientific concepts where students understand the targeted
concepts (Williams et al., 2017). Scientific inquiry skills are the basic building blocks of
learning process skills in science.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM): A practice with
incorporating science with technology, engineering, and math into the classroom
(Weintrop et al., 2016).
Technology integration: The process of incorporating technology in the classroom
(McKnight, et al., 2016). Technology integration is adding technological tools into the
curriculum.
Technology knowledge: An integrated form of knowledge with content knowledge
and pedagogical knowledge that together makes TPACK (Koi et al., 2015).
Technology knowledge is how a teacher understands how to use different technological
tools.
9
Technological tools: Educational technology tools such as computers, probeware,
data collection and analysis software, digital microscopes, iPads, hypermedia/multimedia,
student response systems, and interactive white boards (Minshew & Anderson, 2015).
Technological tools are different types of technology that are used in the classroom.
Technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) model: The
TPACK model is used to examine and develop teachers’ knowledge of integrating
technology into teaching (Koi et al., 2015). The TPACK model is a model that measures
the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge of a teacher.
Twenty-first century classrooms: Classrooms with nontraditional teaching tools
like laptops, personal digital assistants, and digital measuring devices. (Padmavathi,
2016). The 21st-century classrooms are nontraditional classrooms that incorporate
technology.
Assumptions
This study was based on two assumptions. It was assumed that all participants
were content experts and would respond honestly to the interview. It was assumed that all
participants were using technology in their classroom and that their responses would be
relevant to the study. Some science teachers feel that they need to be proficient with all
technology, so predisposition may have affected how the participants responded in the
interview. Some teachers may also prefer certain technologies over others and only
shared best practices about that technology and not others.
10
Scope and Delimitations
The goal of this study was to identify the best practices that middle school science
teachers used with technology to teach scientific inquiry skills. The setting was two
suburban middle schools in the Southeast United States. The population of interest was
middle school science teachers. The study did not focus on students, administration,
parents, the community, ELA teachers, math teachers, social studies teachers, or related
arts teachers. The results from this study were expected to illuminate the best practices
for integrating technology into the middle school science classroom to teach science
inquiry skills. The results are applicable to any middle school within the United States
with similar demographics.
The TPACK framework was used to gather data for the study (Young, 2016). The
The SAMR framework (Gorman, 2018) was considered for this research study, but the
TPACK framework (Tanak, 2018) was found to be more appropriate. More discussion on
the framework is included in Chapter 2.
Limitations
This research study was limited to self-reported data and was dependent upon
volunteers to participate. Because the research study was conducted at one school district,
teachers could have consulted with each other about their responses. But such consulting
would influence their interview responses.
A possible bias for this study was my prior teaching experience as a science
teacher. But I did not let my personal experience teaching science and using technology
impact reporting the best practices as told by the sample population. To address potential
11
personal bias, data from the participants were carefully recorded and decoded. If they
elected, participants could review their interview transcripts. I triangulated the data
obtained by using different data collection strategies. I also maintained a reflective
journal to avoid blending my thoughts with the responses and to record accurately.
Significance
In this qualitative study, I explored the best practices that middle school science
teachers used with technological tools that can be adopted to teach scientific inquiry skills
in middle school science classrooms. This study is important to the field of educational
technology because it presents the most meaningful ways science teachers can use
leading technologies to teach scientific inquiry skills in the classroom. I identified and
codified best practices as reported by the participants. This study also yielded information
to help teachers learn more about how to use technology more meaningfully. The data
from this study could also contribute to the National Common Core Science Standards
resources with its information on how to use different technological tools to teach
scientific inquiry skills. Positive social change includes justifying the use of technology
in middle school science to teach scientific inquiry skills. The use of different
technological tools could prompt the school to invest in sustaining the technologies as
well as in providing more training and funding for teachers.
Summary
There are many ways for middle school science teachers to use technology in the
classroom to teach scientific inquiry skills. In this chapter, I summarized the problem
about the lack of research-based information regarding best practices in teaching
12
scientific inquiry skills. I also summarized the purpose for the research study to find out
about best practices in teaching scientific inquiry skills. The research literature that
related to using technology to teach scientific inquiry skills was also reviewed. I
identified the gap in the knowledge about using technology to teach scientific inquiry
skills and stated the research questions as well as described the conceptual framework.
The nature of the study was summarized and definitions pertaining to the research study
were supplied. The assumptions, scope and delimitations, limitations, and significance
about the research study were also identified and described.
Chapter 2 further explores the literature, the framework, and the importance of
how the literature related to the research study.
13
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The problem addressed in this qualitative case study was that even though
technology and technological tools are increasingly used to teach scientific inquiry skills
in middle school classrooms, teachers’ best practices for making their teaching more
meaningful are not known. Therefore, the purpose of this case study was to gather
information about the technological tools that could be adopted to make the teaching of
scientific inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms more meaningful and gainful
to students.
The literature revealed that teachers have different perceptions about the various
technological tools used to teach scientific inquiry skills in the middle school science
classroom. In a qualitative case study, Williams et al. (2017) investigated how a science
teacher used technology to teach scientific inquiry skills in the middle school classroom.
Williams et al. (2017) reported that the teacher used innovative technological techniques
to engage students with the curriculum. In another qualitative case study, McKnight et al.
(2016) measured the technology proficiency of science teachers and found that most
reported having proficient or advanced skills with using technology in the middle school
classroom. McKnight et al. concluded that science teachers have a wealth of knowledge,
skills, and technological strategies that could convert the science classroom into a
technology learning environment.
The National Science Education Standards (NSES) is a set of standards used by
science teachers to teach scientific inquiry skills and use technology (Weintrop et al.,
14
2016). The NSES standards mandate that science teachers incorporate technology into the
curriculum to teach scientific inquiry skills, but there are no known national sources that
stipulate which technological tools are progressively used to teach science inquiry in these
classrooms (Padmavathi, 2016). Gathering information from middle school science
teachers who used technological tools to teach scientific inquiry skills in middle school
science classrooms could help develop a resource of best practices that could be shared.
In this chapter, I list the sources cited in this literature review and how the sources
provide evidence for the central research questions recommended in this qualitative case
study. I describe the literature search strategies used, the conceptual framework and how
it has been used in recent studies, and literature related to key concepts of this study. I
summarize the major themes of the literature: technology in teacher preparation, middle
school and technology, scientific inquiry skills, and educational technology and provide
provisional material to connect the gap in the literature.
Literature Search Strategy
While searching the literature for this study, the Walden University’s Library
search engine, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and ERIC- Institute of Education Sciences
were used to find articles relating to teaching science in the middle school classroom with
technology. The following keywords were used: science inquiry + teaching + strategies,
TPACK, TPACK Model + science classroom, scientific inquiry skills + middle school
classroom, and efficient teaching practices + TPACK Model. A search for best science
teaching practices with technology, and teaching science inquiry with technology was
also conducted.
15
A search for scientific inquiry skills in the middle school classroom was
conducted with the following databases: Dissertations & Theses @ Walden University,
ERIC, GALE Virtual Reference Library, IBISWorld, IEEE Xplore Digital Library,
LearnTechLib-The Learning and Technology Library, National Science Foundation
NCES Publications, and ProQuest Central. While the search yielded many articles about
scientific inquiry skills, they did not focus on middle school classrooms. Another search
was warranted with the words science and inquiry to find better results and narrow the
list. The new search provided more success using the Boolean term and yielded a more
streamlined list of articles.
In Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and ERIC, a search was conducted for TPACK
and TPACK model in the science classroom. The date range was customized for articles
within the last 5 years. The search yielded over 10 pages of articles, websites, books, and
mentions about the TPACK Model. On each page was 20 listings. The search was
repeated following the same search criteria with the additional use of a Boolean term.
The returned list was smaller and yielded more articles that related to this research study.
There were many articles with PDF files and the PDF file articles were more accessible.
Some articles required that the author be contacted for permission to use the article in the
research study. All of the authors that were contacted responded positively and gave
permission to use their research.
Conceptual Framework
The TPACK Model is a framework which identified the knowledge that was
needed to successfully teach technology in the classroom (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The
16
TPACK Model is used to identify best practices adopted by middle school science
teachers to teach scientific inquiry skills. The model was introduced by Mishra and
Koehler of Michigan State University in 2006. Mishra and Koehler (2006) identified
three different types of knowledge: Content Knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge
(PK), and technological knowledge (TK) to implement technology in the classroom
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Mishra and Koehler’s research into developing the TPACK theory was based on
the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model (Portnoy,
2018) which had four distinct categories: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and
Redefinition to incorporate technology into the classroom (Kihoza et al., 2016). The
SAMR model was used mainly to evaluate technology usage in the classroom and not as
a teaching device (Kihoza et al., 2016). Portnoy (2018), wrote that the SAMR model
redefined the way that technology impacted the classroom and the nature of instruction,
therefore the SAMR model was a great platform for the TPACK theory to be based upon.
While the SAMR model was used more to evaluate, the TPACK model relied on the
connections between technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and content
knowledge and was used to support teachers in their pursuit of integrating technology
into their lessons (Kihoza et al., 2016).
The TPACK model was used in Guzey and Roehrig’s (2009) qualitative research
study which explored how teachers used the TPACK model to teach with different
technology in the classroom. The TPACK model analysis revealed that some teachers
considered themselves proficient, blending pedagogy with technology, while other
17
teachers struggled with incorporating them (Guzey & Roehrig, 2009). In 2010, Allan,
Erickson, Brookhouse, and Johnson applied the TPACK model to their qualitative
research study where they launched The Maine Laptop Program. Middle school students
across the state were given laptops and teachers were given professional development
training to integrate technology into their curriculum. The TPACK model analysis
revealed that over a period of three years, there was a significant increase in technology
skills; an increase in content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills; and positive
transformations with pedagogy for teachers (Allan et al., 2010).
Jang and Tsai (2013) used the TPACK model in their quantitative research study
to investigate how secondary science teachers were influenced by gender and teaching
experience. Jang and Tsai surveyed 1293 teachers and after analyzing their responses
found that female teachers had more content and pedagogical knowledge and that male
teachers had a higher technological knowledge (Jang & Tsai, 2013). More male teachers
were using technology to teach science. After further analysis, they also found that
content knowledge and pedagogy knowledge was more established with experienced
science teachers, therefore teaching experience influenced how technology was used in
the classroom (Jang & Tsai, 2013).
Rosenberg and Koehler (2015) defined TPACK as the description of information
used to clarify certain content with technology while Bang and Luft (2013) defined the
TPACK framework as a system used to identify technological knowledge, content
knowledge, and pedagogy knowledge of teachers. In Bang and Luft’s (2013) qualitative
research study, they used the TPACK framework to identify strategies that teachers used
18
to incorporate technology into their classroom to teach science inquiry skills. Bang and
Luft, 2013 stated that in order for the TPACK framework to be successfully implemented,
teachers must create ICT 21st century learning communities within their school and
establish workable relationships with each other to build a foundation of trust to work
together to teach scientific inquiry skills with technology. The TPACK framework can be
used to teach The Next Generation Science Standards placing emphasis on authentic
scientific investigation in the classroom. (Weintrop et al., 2016).
There were several research studies which provided evidence for how ICT 21st
century learning communities and TPACK had impacted education (Baran, Bilici, Sari, &
Tondeur, 2017; Bilici et al., 2016; Finger et al., 2015; Koi et al., 2015). The research
studies spanned a variety of years and education platforms and yielded data and results
that supported the use of the TPACK framework in teaching. Koi et al.’s (2015)
metaanalysis qualitative research study reviewed seven published theoretical research
papers about how teachers used the TPACK framework for instructional planning and
elearning. The research study concentrated on how TPACK could support pedagogical
efforts to teach students and support 21st century competencies. Data analysis revealed
positive results with technology incorporation in the classroom. Padmavathi’s (2016)
meta-analysis research study presented findings from several previous research studies
involving the TPACK framework as a tool that taught teachers how to incorporate
technology into their lessons. The importance of educational technology in the classroom
was identified and the TPACK framework was used to successfully help prepare teachers
on how to apply different technology tools in their classroom (Padmavathi, 2016).
19
PK was necessary for establishing a foundation for teaching (Baran et al., 2017;
Finger et al., 2015; Martin, 2015; Tokmak, 2015). PK consisted of information about how
to teach and the history of education and teachers needed to know strategies and develop
skills about how to teach students. CK was knowledge about the content or subject and
teachers were expected to be experts in their respective field of study (Finger et al., 2015;
Martin, 2015; Tanak, 2018; Tokmak, 2015). TK was knowing how to incorporate
technology in the classroom. Technology integration in the 21st-century classroom was
on-going, and teachers were expected to use technology to teach (Bilici et al., 2016).
The research questions of this qualitative research study focus on how teachers
used technology in their classrooms, how they apply pedagogy to teach students, and how
content is taught with the aid of technology, therefore the TPACK framework was
appropriate. The TPACK framework is important to this qualitative research study
because I will be able to describe the pedagogy, content, and technology knowledge of
teachers as they discuss the best practices, they adopt to integrate technology into their
classroom.
Literature Review Related to Key Concepts
A review of the literature related to technology use in the science classroom
revealed four themes. In this section I discuss literature for the following:
• Technology in teacher preparation (Bilici et al., 2016; Finger et al., 2015;
Pöntinen, Dillon, & Väisänen, 2017)
• Middle school and technology (Bippert, 2019; Hilton, 2016; Minshew &
Anderson, 2015)
20
• Scientific inquiry skills (Castle & Ferreira, 2015; Fraser, 2017; Williams et al.,
2017) and
• Educational technology (Chun, Kern, & Smith, 2016; Garba,Yusuf, &
Busthami, 2015; McKnight et al., 2016).
Technology in Teacher Preparation
Teacher preparation programs added technology as a part of their curriculum to
help prepare preservice teachers for the classroom. Technology classes were added to
many teacher education programs at colleges and universities as a requirement for
graduation (Baran et al., 2017). The explosion of technology within the last decade
helped to guide the pedagogical, content, and technology knowledge of teacher education
programs (Baran et al., 2017; Tanak, 2018; Tokmak, 2015).
In a meta-analysis study about technology, Martin (2015) examined how teacher
education programs prepared preservice teachers to teach with innovative technologies.
Martin (2015) reported that the assimilation of technology into daily life would spread
into education and impact schools and education preparation programs and that there was
a need to reform teaching and learning. The International Society for Technology in
Education created a set of standards to normalize how educators integrated and taught
technology in the classroom (Martin, 2015). The new standards emphasized the teacher as
the architect of knowledge construction while helping the student to build upon their
technology knowledge. Martin (2015) introduced content, pedagogy, and technology
knowledge as the overall assessment that researchers used to assess tactics for successful
technology integration. Martin (2015) reviewed how content, pedagogy, and technology
knowledge was used to build technology confidence and provide learning opportunities
21
for teachers through technology modeling. For preservice teachers, the benefits of
observing technology-rich environments would increase their knowledge in all areas of
the technology standards (Martin, 2015). Martin’s (2015) research compared the different
instructional practices for preservice teacher training. The National Educational
Technology Standards for Teachers was created to provide support and communicate
goals for teacher education curriculum and articulate the objectives for successful
technology implementation (Martin, 2015). In 2006, all teacher training programs in the
United States provided instruction on technology integration (Martin, 2015). Technology
was placed in content-specific coursework to expand the confidence of preservice
teachers while preparing them to use the technology as an in-service teacher. Martin
(2015) suggested that content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge was the catalyst for
designing the coursework. Technology knowledge was more prominent in education
programs, and professional development activities (Martin, 2015). School faculty also
collaborated with in-service school teachers to develop technology-infused curriculum
that helped preservice teachers with content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge
(Martin, 2015).
In two other research studies about using technology in the classroom, Finger et
al. (2015) reviewed the development of teacher education programs in Australia to use
technologies to assist with teaching and Tokmak (2015) investigated technology use in
teacher preparation of early childhood education preservice teachers in Turkey. In Finger
et al.’s (2015) quantitative research study the government funded a five months long
project called Teaching Teachers for the Future Project at institutions of higher education
22
throughout the country (Finger et al., 2015). The research study was conducted at 48
different institutions across the country with 37 of them being public institutions. Finger
et al. (2015) reported that the Australian government believed that the quality of teacher
education needed to be upgraded to increase productivity in the country and the
importance of developing a program with content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge
was critical to the success of the country. The purpose was to use content, pedagogy, and
technology knowledge to prepare preservice teachers for the classroom. Participants
received a pre- and post-survey online via their school email. Finger et al.’s (2015)
findings revealed that more participants showed teacher confidence with using
technology skills. Students had an improved confidence in using ICT, but there was room
for improvement (Finger et al., 2015). In Tokmak’s (2015) qualitative research study
teachers were asked to design an educational computer game with PowerPoint. The
preservice teachers selected were in the same Early Childhood Education course and had
knowledge of educational computer games. There was a total of 21 participants with two
being male (Tokmak, 2015). Tokmak (2015) used three instruments to collect data
interviews: a demographic questionnaire, interviews, and journals. Tokmak (2015)
revealed that that most of the participants were content with their game they designed
because their games were designed with the classroom environment in mind. The
preservice teachers used content, pedagogy, and technology together to create a game
where students were able to learn, thereby presenting success for the technology
assimilation in their teacher preparation program (Tokmak, 2015).
23
Bilici et al.’s (2016) qualitative research study assessed the content, pedagogy, and
technology knowledge of preservice teachers over a semester long course. Bilici et al.
(2016) discussed the importance of integrating technology into teaching. The twentyfirst
century classroom had become laden with technology and teachers were expected to use
technology to teach (Bilici et al., 2016). Bilici et al. (2016) sought to show how content,
pedagogy, and technology knowledge were unique and would benefit teacher preparation
programs. The research study had a sample group of 27 preservice science teachers from
a university in Turkey who offered to join in the case study (Bilici et al., 2016). Data were
collected through lesson plans and observations over a period of thirteen weeks. There
was a significant increase in the use of technology in the classroom, but no opportunities
for support (Bilici et al., 2016). Bilici et al. (2016) concluded that it was critical to
identify and measure a teacher’s use of technology in the
classroom to foster efficient integration of technology into their future teaching.
Like Bilici et al.’s (2016) qualitative research study, Tanak’s (2018)
mixedmethods research study also addressed the integration of technology into classroom
using content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge for preservice teachers. The ability
of teachers to incorporate technology into the classroom was an essential part of teacher
education (Tanak, 2018). Tanak (2018) evaluated how a course in a teacher preparation
program develop the content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge of preservice science
teachers. The sample population was 15 preservice teachers, 3 males, and 12 females
enrolled in a 2-year Master of teaching program at a public university (Tanak, 2018). The
students completed a content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge questionnaire and
24
submitted science lesson plans using technology for analysis. Tanak (2018) discovered
that the teachers used technology mostly as a teaching tool to support instruction. They
used content knowledge more, and used pedagogy knowledge less (Tanak, 2018). Tanak
(2018) concluded that the focus of teacher preparation programs should be on
understanding how to blend technology, content, and pedagogy knowledge together.
Baran et al.’s (2017) quantitative research study and Pöntinen et al.’s, (2017)
research study both examined preservice teachers’ and technology integration in the
classroom. Teacher preparation programs had added the practice of preparing preservice
teachers how to teach technology. Baran et al. (2017) sampled 215 preservice teachers
from three universities in Turkey over one semester. The preservice teachers were given
the synthesis of qualitative evidence (SQD) scale, which was developed by Tondeur, Van
Braak, Ertmer, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich in 2016. The scale rated the teachers on the
efficiency of the strategies they learned while preparing to integrate technology in their
future classrooms (Baran et al., 2017). Baran et al. reported that the most commonly used
strategies for technology integration were reflection and modeling. There were limited
opportunities to offer feedback and evaluation for preservice teachers. Baran et al.
concluded that teacher education programs that implemented technology integration
practices would benefit preservice teachers as long as there were ways to offer feedback
for improvement. Pöntinen et al.’s (2017) studied technology education programs for
preservice teachers and revealed that teacher preparation programs taught pedagogical
knowledge about technology education in the classroom but failed to offer practice and
support for students enrolled in the program. Students were not given the opportunity to
25
turn their analytical knowledge into practical knowledge, thus they struggled with
incorporating technology later in their professional careers (Pöntinen et al., 2017).
Pöntinen et al. (2017) reported once the preservice teacher was in a classroom, support
for technology was not guaranteed. Teacher preparation programs revealed that when
support was offered for technology, preservice teachers were expected to use technology
in the classroom (Pöntinen et al., 2017).
Another research study that focused on technology in the classroom was Foulgeri,
Graziano, Schmidt-Crawford, and Slykhuis’s (2017) mixed-methods research study that
investigated how Teacher Education Technology Competencies (TETC) supported
teacher candidates as they prepared to become teachers who use technology frequently.
Foulgeri et al. (2017) reported that collaborative research approaches were used to assist
with developing the TETCs. The research approaches were the efforts of
technologyrelated information, a Delphi method for professional feedback, and an open
call for public remark (Foulgeri et al., 2017). Foulgeri et al. (2017) reported that most
teacher preparation programs were semester long and used a separate technology
integration course to learn how to teach with technology. TETCs placed teacher
candidates with experienced teachers in classrooms along with the technology integration
course. Foulgeri et al. (2017) reported that crowdsourcing, where many individuals could
participate, addressed the aptitudes needed by teacher to support the development of
preservice teachers as they acquire knowledge to teach with technology. The Delphi
method validated and refined ideas about TETCs through survey-driven data collection.
26
Public comments yielded positive, enthusiastic attitudes towards the TETCs (Foulgeri et
al., 2017). Foulgeri et al. (2017) concluded that TETCs were positive and all teacher
candidates should have equitable, high-quality technology experiences throughout their
teacher preparation programs based upon a set of competencies that were used to help
guide teacher educators in understanding what was needed to integrate technology.
Middle School and Technology
Technology integration in middle school classrooms encompassed a variety of
tools. Minshew and Anderson’s (2015) qualitative research study discussed the use of
how to use technology with one-to-one iPad use in the science and math classroom.
Minshew and Anderson focused on two sample groups, students at the middle school
level and middle school teachers in the classroom. They selected a Title I middle school
in the southeastern part of the United States and used pseudonyms for the school and
participants (Minshew & Anderson, 2015). The student group was diverse with a total of
647 participants (Minshew & Anderson, 2015). Minshew and Anderson only sampled the
6th grade teachers because their ratio of students to teachers was 100 to 4. Out of the 6th
grade teachers, all choose to participate and two were selected for a case study (Minshew
& Anderson, 2015). Data were collected via interviews, observations, circle of influence
diagram, field notes, lesson plans, and video data (Minshew & Anderson, 2015). The data
were coded, and the researchers saw that teachers felt good about the use of one-to-one
technologies (Minshew & Anderson, 2015). The benefits of one-to-one technologies were
creativity with student learning, application of critical thinking skills, collaboration, and
digital literacy (Minshew & Anderson, 2015). Minshew and Anderson’s research also
revealed how iPad use gave teachers the ability to include technology-rich lessons that
27
advanced student learning and engaged students in the learning process. The data also
identified some barriers, teacher bias within their own struggle with technology,
connectivity, and professional development. Teachers who used one-to-one technologies
were more creative with student learning to apply critical thinking skills, collaboration,
and digital literacy (Minshew & Anderson, 2015). iPad use in the classroom advanced
student learning and engaged students in the learning process (Minshew & Anderson,
2015). Integrating technology in middle school classrooms was superb, but a framework
was needed to assess how efficient it was for middle school teachers.
Like Minshew and Anderson (2015), Hilton’s (2016) qualitative case study also
used technology integration into the classroom and two separate models were used as two
ways integration could happen in the classroom. Hilton examined the use of each model
in the classroom. Hilton’s research study was conducted in an urban school district in
southwestern Pennsylvania. The case study followed two 8th grade middle school social
studies teachers use of 30 iPads to teach content to their students (Hilton, 2016). The
teachers had two separate technology models to use. Each teacher used one model for
half of the school year and then the other model for the other half (Hilton, 2016). The
findings suggested that the first model did not function in a hierarchical manner (Hilton,
2016). There was no scaffolding because each area was considered a different task,
therefore when one model was completed, the teacher moved to the other. The second
model gave the teachers a way to scaffold and build within the lessons (Hilton, 2016).
28
Hilton (2016) reported that the teachers agreed that the models were both useful, but the
second model appeared more easily aligned with teacher-centered instructional design
philosophies and focused on the teacher (Hilton, 2016).
Young (2016) conducted a meta-analysis of a technology framework in
mathematics education to show how technology-enhanced lessons can be efficient in the
mathematics classrooms. Young reported the framework was used because it provided
practical, empirical and theoretical considerations for the integration of technology in the
math classroom. Young chose a meta-analysis to identify specific variables that can
account for variation on the efficiency of technology integration in the mathematics
classroom. Young found that the technologies that were integrated in the mathematics
classroom focused on the functionality of the tool and how the tool could be used to
improve and enhance mathematics. The framework was provided as a valid and reliable
framework to guide the investigation and the study supported the use of the framework as
an analytical tool characterized by pedagogical and content knowledge in the
mathematics classroom (Young, 2016).
Romine, Sadler, and Wulff (2017) used a mixed methods study to explore middle
school gender differences related to science and technology. Romine et al. developed the
Measure of Affect in Science and Technology to measure middle school students’
perspective about science and technology. Romine et al.’s methodology focused on the
how the students felt about science and technology. Romine et al. monitored the student’s
perspectives but found that they did not understand fully. Therefore, they developed and
implemented a study instrument to fill this gap (Romine et al., 2017). This instrument, the
29
Measure of Affect in Science and Technology (MAST), assessed how students were
interested in science and technology (Romine et al., 2017). A classical test theory and
Rasch analysis was used to produce dependable and acceptable explanations regarding
middle school students’ affect and propose recommendations for its use (Romine et al.,
2017). Romine et al. sampled 79 6th graders at a middle school in a small Midwestern city
with 45 were male and 28 were female students. Romine et al. reported that after the
preliminary evaluation of construct validity using classical test methods, they added three
items to the assessment, and administered the updated survey to a total of 138 students.
There were 92 6th graders and 46 7th graders. The student population equated to 79
female, and 59 male students (Romine et al., 2017). Romine et al. found that there was a
high interest in science careers because science and technology carried the highest
affective score. Romine et al. (2017) reported that males exhibited greater aptitudes of
personal interest in science, science careers, and the biggest interest in technology.
Romine et al. concluded that middle school students learned more in science with
technology use.
Tyler-Wood, Cockerham, and Johnson’s (2018) quantitative research study
examined how teachers and students used technology in a rural middle school and
Bippert’s (2019) qualitative case study analyzed the interactions of students and staff
members as they used technology at school. Even though the sample populations were
different, both research studies analyzed the integration of technology in the middle
school classroom. Tyler-Wood et al. (2018) reported that according to the Next
Generation Science Standards all students needed to attain a vigorous K-12 science
30
education to be prosperous globally and that this goal can be achieved when teachers and
students were required to use technology. Tyler-Wood et al. believed that
technologyintegrated instruction could convert contemporary classrooms to promote
scholar enthusiasm, longer attention spans, and academic success by sharing new
methods of learning with the scholar. Tyler-Wood et al. noted that this transformation
begun with training teachers to use technology in the classroom and with teaching them
how to best apply the technology to help students. Tyler-Wood et al. sampled 24 teachers
and a group of seventh grade students in two rural Texas school districts. The schools
were selected based on demographics where 70% of students were White, 23% were
Hispanic, and 3% were Black (Tyler-Wood et al., 2018). The remaining percentage of
students were Native American, Asian, or biracial (Tyler-Wood et al., 2018). Tyler-Wood
et al. (2018) stated that teachers and students received online pre- and post-intervention
surveys. The students received The International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational
Achievement’s assessment known as TIMSS and the teachers received the Concernsbased
Adoption Model-Levels of Use (Tyler-Wood et al., 2018). The pre- and postsurveys were
assessed, and the data were analyzed using one-way Analysis of Variance (Tyler-Wood et
al., 2018). Tyler-Wood et al. concluded that using technology did not preclude a teacher’s
or student’s successful with technologies. Success was accomplished with substantial
planning, student training, and teacher training in order to incorporate technology in the
middle school classroom.
31
Bippert (2019) sought to capture the cultural perceptions related to technological
tools using a computer-aided reading intervention program. Bippert reported a trend with
technology-based comprehension intervention programs at middle schools in the United
States and these programs were promoted as interesting and great for students, but there
was a lack of consistent evidence to support that claim. Bippert sampled two teachers,
four students, and two administrators all at the same urban middle school. Bippert
analyzed the perceptions of each group as they used the reading intervention program.
Data were collected through observational field notes, screen and audio recordings,
interviews, and informal conversations. Bippert’s findings showed that the participants’
opinions of the reading tactics and technology tools differed across participant groups.
The perceptions about technology differed among teachers, students, and administrators
in regard to the reading intervention program (Bippert, 2019). Students felt the program
did not differentiate enough for their unique reading difficulty. Teachers felt the program
was a great resource, but additional support was needed. Administrators felt the program
was worth the funding because it was marketed as a top technological tool to help
struggling readers (Bippert, 2019). Bippert concluded that schools should focus on their
individual and technology resources to know what was meaningful to foster achievement
and include a choice of comprehension strategies to support active commitment,
opportunities for social activities and technology integration.
Scientific Inquiry Skills
Scientific inquiry skills were taught as a separate science concept in middle school
classrooms worldwide (Williams et al., 2017). A comparison of the same class over a
32
two-year time revealed how one science teacher used a variety of technology to teach
scientific inquiry skills. Williams et al. (2017) collected the teacher’s technology
integration data to teach science inquiry skills in the classroom. The teacher was a
nineyear veteran teacher that taught middle school science at a New Zealand high school.
The data collected revealed that the teacher scaffolded the lessons with technology for
over two years with the same group of students (Williams et al., 2017). Science inquiry
skills were taught as a scaffolding concept to increase student engagement and interest in
science (Williams et al., 2017). Students explored authentic science problems and
realworld applications with the addition of technology in science. Each year the students’
knowledge and understanding of science inquiry skills increased with the use of
technology (Williams et al., 2017). There was value in using different technologies in the
classroom because some students gravitated more towards one or more technological
tools and gained an advantage to understand and process the scientific inquiry skills
objective (Williams et al., 2017). Science inquiry as a separate concept was efficient.
The concept of scientific inquiry skills has also been integrated with the TPACK
framework to teach the concept (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). The Professional Learning
Design Model (TPLDM) along with the components of the TPACK framework, were
used to teach technology-enhanced lessons in the science classroom (Jaipal-Jamani &
Figg, 2015). Jaipal-Jamani & Figg’s (2015) case study approach studied how blogging
could be used to understand science inquiry. This research study was conducted at an
inner-city school over 4 weeks with three female eighth grade middle school science
teachers who had limited experience using blogs for classroom instruction (Jaipal-Jamani
33
& Figg, 2015). The teachers attended a technology professional development workshop
to learn how to implement technology-enhanced lessons to teach eighth grade science
objectives (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). Jaipal-Jamani & Figg (2015) concluded that
PCK increased to decipher teaching strategies and content for efficient science teaching.
TK increased for efficient instruction with technological tools in the science classroom
(Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). Attendance at professional development workshops
increased CK and TK (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). Blogging in science education
helped endorse 21st Century learning skills and increased the TPACK of students and
teachers (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). Furthermore, Jaipal-Jamani & Figg stated
professional development added value to the science curriculum for teachers, and the
technology workshops helped teachers execute lessons successfully (p. 26).
In the United States, science inquiry skills combined within a framework was the
key to a good science program (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). In China, a good science
program was the technology knowledge was used to help improve science education and
add technology into the classroom (Liu et al., 2017). In Thailand, the art of good teaching
and learning practice was developed through scientific experimental skills using
inquirybased learning with digital technology (Thanapud, Kamyod, Chaisricharoen, &
Yooyatiwong, 2018).
The teaching structure in China was categorized into teacher-centered and
teacher-led instruction (Liu et al., 2017). Liu et al.’s qualitative research study used video
observation to analyze the use of technology in six classrooms in the Jilin Provence D of
China (p. 15). The video was encoded, and information was entered into tables to analyze
34
the data (Liu et al., 2017). The TPACK structure of teachers’ relationships, and teaching
styles enhanced the fluency of classroom teaching and technology used to teach science
(Liu et al., 2017). The TPACK structure helped improve science education in China and
integrated technology into the classroom (Liu et al., 2017).
In Thailand, digital technology was used to create a learning management system
to promote inquiry-based learning (Thanapud et al., 2018). Thanapud et al.’s (2018)
research study was conducted in Chiang Rai, Thailand, with eighth grade science learners
to observe behavior while using digital technology in the science classroom. Student
learners enjoyed using digital technology to complete scientific experiments (Thanapud et
al., 2018) and teacher confidence with using digital technology increased due to daily
classroom use (Thanapud et al., 2018).
Castle and Ferreira (2015) reported that in the United States, The National
Research Council released a document which reviewed the need to ask scientific
questions, develop models and simulation, and prepare and carry out investigations, The
Next Generation Science Standards (p. 14). The requirement for teaching science needed
to be more than just content and assessments (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). A qualitative
research study at a middle school in southeastern Michigan selected 12 science teachers
to participate in a 5-Point Likert survey that questioned the teachers’ overall knowledge
about teaching middle school science (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). In addition to the survey,
a focus group session and observations occurred (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). In the focus
group, the teachers were interviewed about their obligations to teach and apply the Next
Generation Science Standards (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). All teachers enjoyed using a
35
guided inquiry approach to teaching because the students investigated and asked
questions (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). A structured inquiry was also preferred for teaching
scientific inquiry skills because the teacher asked questions, and the students supplied the
correct answer (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). An open-ended inquiry was least favored
because the answer to the question was inconclusive (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). This study
indicated that teachers have a decent understanding of scientific inquiry skills concepts
but realized that a framework was needed to teach additional skillsets like scientific
reasoning and theory development (Castle & Ferreira, 2015).
Specific components of the TPACK framework were used to problem solve with
science teachers (Fraser, 2017). Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) was introduced
to science teachers to discover how optimal learning could take place in a mostly
traditional distance learning environment (Fraser, 2017). The distance education learning
environment was paper saturated and deprived science teachers of hands-on
scienceoriented practice (Fraser, 2017). Fraser stated interviews conducted with the four
science professionals lasted for 45 minutes concerning their capabilities with instructional
design application and implementation in distance education. The four science
professionals stated that the design application was not optimal for learning scientific
inquiry skills (Fraser, 2017). The paper-based tutorials were best for sharing practices but
failed to engage the learners in communities of hands-on scientific inquiry skills (Fraser,
2017). The focus of the Distance Education program was not centered on the
development of strategies for scientific inquiry skills practice (Fraser, 2017).
Scientific inquiry skills practice happened at a young age. Aydemir, Ugras,
36
Cambay, and Kilic’s (2017) quantitative research study examined the how preschool
teachers view science and scientific inquiry skills. Early science and scientific inquiry
skills exposure led to the development of positive attitudes with science. (Aydemir et al.,
2017). Scientific inquiry skills were expressed as understanding the natural world and
understanding evidence that support natural phenomena (Aydemir et al., 2017). Scientific
inquiry skills were also conveyed as the accomplishments of learners scientific as they
understand the natural world (Aydemir et al., 2017). In this research study at Firat
University, Turkey, preservice preschool science teachers were given a questionnaire to
collect their perception about scientific inquiry skills (Aydemir et al., 2017). The overall
opinionated data concluded that the nature of science and scientific inquiry skills should
be taught at a young age (Aydemir et al., 2017). The preservice preschool teachers
recommended that education courses use appropriate pedagogical approaches to teach the
core fundamentals of the nature of science and scientific inquiry skills in undergraduate
education to preservice teachers (Aydemir et al., 2017). Ayedemir et al. concluded that the
teachers believed teaching scientific inquiry skills at a young age helped prepare young
learners to understand science and scientific inquiry skills better as they progressed.
Educational Technology
Educational technology was a concept enhanced technology integration in the
classroom (McKnight et al., 2016). McKnight et al.’s (2016) mixed methods research
study sampled 44 teachers to discover how technology-enhanced student learning.
Teachers completed a voluntary online survey about their technology use, and 40 out of
the 44 teachers responded (McKnight et al., 2016). The findings conveyed most teachers
37
reported proficiency or advanced skills with technology use. Few teachers described
issues with incorporating technology in the classroom; instead, there was a high level of
commitment to using technology in the classroom to enhance learning (McKnight et al.,
2016). Yet, there were a few barriers that hindered successful implementation: lack of
administrative support, insufficient training, and lack of support to sustain technology
usage in the classroom. Despite the barriers, educational technology was efficaciously
integrated in the classroom (McKnight et al., 2016).
McKnight et al. (2016) reported that teachers were advanced with technology
integration. Pilgrim and Martinez’s (2015) qualitative research study examined how
teachers integrated technology and web literacy skills to develop literacy skills (Pilgrim
& Martinez, 2015). Pilgrim and Martinez (2015) wrote The United States Department of
Education released the National Technology Plan in 2010 and the purpose of the plan was
to introduce 21st century literacy skills into the classroom because literacy was no longer
traditional with books, paper, and pencils. The impact of technology perception affected
teacher’s web literacy skills, technology integration, and TPACK. Teachers
communicated a lack of confidence with incorporating web literacy skills and suggested
that web literacy skills be taught in the classroom regardless of the content (Pilgrim &
Martinez, 2015). Teachers indicated the lack of an evaluation method to distinguish
between credible and noncredible sources on the web hindered how to distinguish
between the two types of sources (Pilgrim & Martinez, 2015).
Technology integration was used to examine the use of TPACK to teach STEM in
middle school classrooms (Rahman, Krishnan, & Kapila, 2017) Robotics technology was
38
the concept for teaching STEM education. A group of twenty teachers from an urban
inner-city middle school with a familiarity using robots and a robotics-based instructional
framework in their classroom were invited to participate. (Rahman et al., 2017).
Observations and a questionnaire were completed illuminating how the teachers used
robotics-based technology and the TPACK model was applied to the robotics-based
instructional framework. First, Technological Knowledge was required to teach
roboticsbased technology. The teacher handled issues that arose and modeled the use of
the robotic equipment (Rahman et al., 2017). Second, Pedagogical Knowledge was
required by teachers to differentiate, scaffold, and group students. Last, Content
Knowledge was needed because teachers had to know their grade level specific
curriculum to teach the correct information (Rahman et al., 2017). The TPACK model
was essential to the success of the program.
In another STEM program in the United States, teaching portfolios were
introduced through the Engineering for All program, a 5 year-long STEM program that
was supposed to develop middle school technology and highlight the duties of engineers
in solving global and community-based design (Lomask, Crismond, & Hacker, 2018).
Twenty-two teachers were tasked to teach the engineering units over time to middle
school students. Lomask et al. collected data with a 5-point Likert scale and the
submission of teaching portfolio logs yielded results that most teachers had encouraging
views about the new technology curriculum (Lomask et al., 2018). The use of technology
was beneficial in teaching the engineering theme and classroom instruction, but the
content of the unit was too hard to accurately understand (Lomask et al., 2018).
39
In more science programs, Khlaif, Gok, and Kouraïchi (2019) examined how
instructional practices in technology education in Palestine was used to identify the
importance of procedures to teach educational technology and Chun et al., (2016)
examined how instructional practices in a meta-analysis research study focused on the
teaching language with technology in the classroom. Middle school teachers examined
the procedures and processes used to design technology-enhanced activities for a one-
toone mobile technology environment in a middle school environment (Khlaif et al.,
2019). Khlaif et al. used a multiple-case study design with 27 teachers who volunteered
for the research study from different middle schools in the technology restricted country.
The volunteer teachers attempted to use collaborative procedures to plan technology-rich
lessons. Data were collected through observations, organized interviews, and focus
groups every month for 8 months with interviews scheduled at the convenience of the
participants and completed within 30 minutes (Khlaif et al., 2019). The results presented
that the violence in the region affected how the design teams worked together (Khlaif et
al., 2019). Furthermore, the social and religious factors delayed the discussion of the
group due to disagreeing policies from the Ministry of Education (Khlaif et al., 2019).
Time, culture, and security barriers were the main challenges for the design teams as they
attempted to meet and design their activities (Khlaif et al., 2019). Despite their best
efforts, instructional practice procedures were difficult to maintain as intrusive sources
delayed or deterred progress.
Technology changed and had evolved but the concept of language acquisition did
not change and was a needed concept in education (Chun et al., 2016). The dilemma for
40
some teachers was how to incorporate technology into teaching practices to best teach
language (Chun et al., 2016). Speech could be taught using digital technologies. Digital
devices were physical devices that could be manipulated to produce sound and video
(Chun et al., 2016). Virtual environments were available for users to practice language
use and re-create themselves to interact with others (Chun et al., 2016). Purposeful use of
technology engaged the learner and teacher to indicate meaningful learning, critical
reflection, and focus on what was important, and using the right technology could
influence how well language was acquired and retained (Chun et al., 2016).
Technological tools increased success with instructional practices.
Educational technology was used to shape the foundation of 21st century
classrooms (Garba et al., 2015) and was also influenced by pedagogy (Tondeur et al.,
(2016). The use of 21st century technology-based teaching methods for instructors in
Malaysia and the Asia Pacific showed how infrastructure and internet connectivity
provided students and instructors with the chance of embracing 21st century
teachinglearning methods that certified the development of 21st century technology skills
like sending an email, uploading a document, and connecting to the internet (Garba et al.,
2015). The availability of internet connectivity was a key component for a transfer from
content-based learning to interactive project-based learning. Eight teachers from two
nonurban schools in the state of Kedah in Malaysia were selected for the research study.
Garba et al. collected and analyzed data and revealed a distinctive organization in the use
of computer and internet among teachers. Even with the advances of internet and 21st
century technologies, the method to teaching and learning did not alter (Garba et al.,
2015). Teachers in Malaysia had simple training on the use of computers and using the
41
internet by attending conferences and taking courses. However, Garba et al. reported
teaching and learning had centered around the use of current and evolving technologies.
Teachers were not comfortable using emerging technologies (Garba et al., 2015).
Teachers and technology were the critical factors in a 21st century classroom. When
teachers adopted the use of 21st century learning approaches and teaching methods,
classroom practices should have changed but did not. Several approaches were needed,
training, support, and an additional framework like the TPACK theory needed to be
incorporated into teacher education for more success (Garba et al., 2015). Educational
technology in the 21st century classroom had amplified and could be sustained with
support, training, and TPACK (Garba et al., 2015).
Tondeur et al.’s (2016) meta-aggregative research study focused on the connection
between the pedagogical beliefs and educational use of technology. Technology had
steadily increased, and teachers have incorporated a variety of technologies in the
classroom. Personal pedagogy influenced a teacher’s belief about technology integration
within the classroom (Tondeur et al., 2016). Teachers selected technologies that aligned
with their subject and thoughts about good education. Over time, a teacher’s pedagogical
belief influenced their experience with technology, which could change their classroom
practices with technology (Tondeur et al., 2016). The integration of technology could not
be a single event but rather a demonstration of learning that supported technology
education in the classroom.
The literature that I reviewed supports my choice of methodology and relates to
the research question. The case study methodology and the TPACK framework are
42
appropriate for this qualitative research study. They are appropriate because I explained
how individual teachers use technology usage in the classroom. The TPACK model
provided three components: TK, CK, and PK that were essential for a teacher’s ability to
assimilate technology into the classroom (Baran et al., 2017) and I used the components
to examine this integration. This qualitative research study will share best practices that
science teachers use to teach scientific inquiry skills in middle school classrooms. This
research study will answer questions about the importance of successfully integrating
technology into the 21st century classroom and using technological tools to teach science
content.
Summary and Conclusion
In this chapter, I summarized the major themes for the literature and discussed
how middle school science classrooms had been equipped with different technological
tools for science teachers to use to teach scientific inquiry skills (Williams et al., 2017). I
described the TPACK framework and how it had been used to assist with the integration
of technology in the science classroom in several research studies (McKnight et al., 2016;
Rahman et al., 2017) and various factors affected the PK, CK, and TK of science
teachers, which affected how they use technology (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). I noted
that scientific inquiry skills were being taught in science classrooms worldwide with a
variety of technological methods (Williams et al., 2017) and that educational technology
was important to 21st century classrooms (Garba et al., 2015).
Middle school science teachers were using technology in the classroom to teach
scientific inquiry skills, but their best practices for teaching scientific inquiry skills with
43
technology was not known. Gathering information from middle school science teachers
who use technological tools to teach scientific inquiry skills in middle school science
classrooms to be more meaningful and gainful for students was necessary. The present
research study examined factors that involved the best practices used to teach scientific
inquiry skills with technology, how the TPACK framework related to teaching with
technology, and incorporating educational technology in the classroom.
In this chapter I restated the problem and purpose, provided a concise synopsis of
the literature and cited sources that supported and provided evidence for the central
research questions recommended in this qualitative case study. The framework was
identified while I synthesized the primary writing of the key theorists and researchers.
The concept was applied the benefit for the research was established. The related
literature was described, justified, and synthesized providing evidence for the research
study.
In Chapter 3, the research design, rationale, methodology, and ethics for this
qualitative research study are examined.
Chapter 3: Research Method
The problem addressed in this qualitative case study was that even though
technology and technological tools are increasingly used to teach scientific inquiry skills
in middle school classrooms, best practices for making their teaching more meaningful
are not known. Therefore, the purpose of this research case study was to gather
information about the technological tools that could be adopted to make the teaching of
44
scientific inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms more meaningful and gainful
to students.
In this chapter, I introduce the research design and rationale. The role of the
researcher is defined, along with how I did not impact the research study with
professional relationships and biases. The methodology is described to identify the
population, sampling strategy, participant criterion, number of participants, procedures
for recruitment, and relationship between sample size and saturation. I identify the data
collection method and sources. The data collection strategies, participants recruitment
procedures and the data analysis plan, along with how I deal with discrepant cases, is
explained in detail. I also address issues of credibility, transferability, dependability,
confirmability, as well as ethical procedure.
Research Design and Rationale
This study was designed to explore how teachers used different strategies with
technology to teach scientific inquiry skills in the middle school classroom. It was also
designed to capture their perceptions about their effectiveness with content, pedagogy,
and technology in the middle school science classroom. These four research questions
guided the study:
RQ 1: What strategies do middle school science teachers adopt when using
technology to teach science in the middle school classroom?
RQ 2: What are the technological tools that middle school science teachers use to
teach scientific inquiry skills, and which of these tools do teachers perceive to be
more meaningful?
45
RQ 3: Do the teachers feel that they are quite competent in their pedagogical
knowledge to use the technological tools and strategies they adopt to cover up the
content that is used in the middle school classroom?
RQ 4: What are the negative and positive factors that are related to their usage of
technological tools and strategies when teaching science in the middle school
classroom?
For this study, I compared qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research.
All three research methods have positives and negatives. A quantitative research study
was not applicable for this research study because I wanted more details about the
strategies that teachers used in the classroom. I wanted to talk directly with the
participants and gain their experience in their own words. Using a questionnaire or survey
would be an extra step for the participants (Aydemir et al., 2017) in my research study. A
mixed-methods research method was not applicable for this study because I would have
to use aspects of quantitative research for the participants, such as questionnaires,
surveys, and polls (Hughes, 2016).
I decided to use a qualitative method to capture detailed data from the
participants. Among the qualitative designs, I considered using a phenomenological
approach but rejected it because this approach focuses on the lived experiences of
participants (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). I also considered the grounded theory approach but
rejected it because the researcher is creating new theories as data is analyzed and
collected (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). I reviewed the narrative approach and rejected it
because I want to ask more questions that would yield deeper data (Strauss & Corbin,
46
1994). I considered the ethnography approach but rejected it because it focuses more on
cultural factors and this research study was not focusing on that aspect (Strauss & Corbin,
1994).
For this qualitative research study, I used a case study approach with the TPACK
model as the conceptual framework. I decided to use a case study design to gain a greater
understanding of how teachers use technology in the middle school classroom to teach
scientific inquiry skills (Hilton, 2016; Tokmak, 2015; Williams et al., 2017). This case
study design answered the how question and was a great way to distinguish the
phenomenon from the subject (Hilton, 2016; Tokmak, 2015; Williams et al., 2017). In
Hilton’s research study, the data were collected from case studies to gain insight for how
two veteran teachers incorporated technology in the classroom. The teachers were able to
reflect upon their technology use and explain their perceptions of success and failures
(Hilton, 2016). In Tokmak’s research study, the data were collected from case studies to
help participants understand how their TPACK development was perceived while
teaching scientific inquiry skills with technology in the middle school classroom. In
Williams et al.’s (2017) research study, a case study approach was used to gain the
perception of a teacher that implemented technology to teach scientific inquiry skills in
the classroom over two years to support student learning. The data collected yielded
which technological tools and strategies used by the teacher were meaningful.
Role of the Researcher
In this qualitative research study, I was the observer and the primary data
collector. I collected data interviewing participants. This research study was conducted at
47
middle schools in the Southeastern part of the United States. I had a professional
relationship with all teachers, administrators, and staff members at the school as I used to
work at the middle school as a science teacher. The participants are teachers that I had
worked with for five years or less. I did not have any supervisory positions while I
worked as a teacher at this school. There were no concerns of power or undue influence
because I am no longer employed in the school district or at the same school. As such
there was no way that conflict or bias could occur.
Methodology
In this section I identify the population, justify the sampling strategy, state the
number of participants and justify the sample size. I discuss the basis for the instrument
that was developed for this research study and describe how content validity affects it. I
discuss the data analysis plan and identify how the data connects to the research
questions, the procedures for coding, software analysis, and how discrepant cases are
treated.
Participant Selection
The target population for the research study are middle school science teachers
who have at least one year of teaching experience in the middle school. The target
population was not limited by disabilities or any health impairments. A purposeful
sampling strategy was applied to this research study. Ruggiero and Mong (2015) reported
purposive sampling would identify and select those individuals with specific
characteristics that fit the criteria of a research study to answer the research question. I
focused on certain characteristics of the target population. The target participants fulfilled
48
the following common factors: teaching science in the middle school for at least one year
and have used technological tools in their classroom.
I submitted my IRB Application to conduct the research. After receiving IRB
approval (Approval No. 02-27-20-0398946), I contacted the principal of the school by
email to ask for a list of email addresses of the middle school science teachers. In that
email I included a confidentiality agreement to assure the principal that the email
addresses were only used for the purpose of contact regarding this research study. In the
email to the science teachers, I included the description of the research study, the consent
form and criteria questions. All middle school science teachers who meet the criteria were
invited to participate and were contacted via email. I used a purposeful and criterion
selection strategy; therefore, 10 participants were considered to be adequate to provide
sufficient answers to the research questions for this research study (Bippert, 2019;
JaipalJamani & Figg, 2015). I planned to respond to the first 10 participants who
submitted their signed consent form. I allowed for a window of 3 weeks after sending the
email to receive responses. The first 10 participants (Minshew & Anderson, 2015) who
submitted their signed consent form would receive a confirmation email stating that they
were selected to participate in the research study with more details that related to the
research study and interview. The consent form includes privacy information, the problem
statement and purpose of the research study, along with the social impact of the study to
the field of science and technology.
49
Saturation occurs as data is collected and the same themes or patterns are repeated
by the participants. I planned to use the same interview protocol with each of the
participants; therefore, saturation would occur by the time I finished the interviews.
Instrumentation
The purpose of this qualitative research case study was to gather information
about the technological tools that could be adopted to make the teaching of scientific
inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms more meaningful and gainful to
student. I decided to use an interview protocol (see Appendix A) to collect data. I used the
research questions to create detailed interview questions for the interview protocol. No
other historical or legal documents were needed as a source of data for the interview
protocol. Aydemir et al. (2017) stated that interviews were individualized semistructured
data collection tools that can help a researcher focus on the interviewee.
The interview protocol was developed by me. All questions were developed based
upon the focus in the research and literature sources of the research study. The questions
were placed in a table format to note how the interview questions relate to the research
questions. Content validity was established by citing the research questions and literature
sources as they correspond with the question. All research questions were linked to the
interview questions in tabular format (see Appendix B). The questions all pertained to the
expertise of the middle school science teachers as specialists in their field teaching
science and incorporating technology.
50
Procedures for Recruitment, Participation and Data Collection
I received IRB approval, and began recruitment for my research study by
contacting the principal of the school and asking for a list of email addresses of current
science teachers who meet the criteria. I sent introductory emails to all science teachers
with the consent form about the research study. The introductory email included the
description of the research study, the consent form, potential interview dates and times,
and participant criteria for the research study. I allowed for a window of 2–3 weeks
waittime for replies. I would accept the first five signed consent forms for the research
study and send those participants a confirmation email with their teleconference interview
date and time. As a result of school closures due to the coronavirus pandemic it became
impossible to recruit ten participants. I have explained the modifications to the research
study in Chapter 4.
The data were collected by me through teleconference interviews. I asked the
participants to make sure they are located in a quiet and private environment. I conducted
the interview and collected the data at the agreed upon time. This was a one-time
interview. The interview lasted about 60 minutes. The data were recorded, and the
teleconferencing software was used to record the interview. The participants exited the
study with instructions to contact me with any questions they may have related to their
responses and a request to email a lesson plan where they are using technology to me.
They received their online gift card via email within 3 business days. If any participant
chose to exit the research study early, they were thanked for their willingness and
response. No one chose to exit the research study early. For my follow-up, I contacted the
51
interviewees to ask additional questions about their responses. I reminded them that they
can receive a transcript of their responses to the interview questions to review. If
participants agreed with the transcript, no further action would be needed on their part. If
they disagreed, then they could correct the transcript and return it via email. The
participants declined to receive a transcript.
A deductive coding software, NVIVO was used to decode all data in the research
study. The decoding software was used to decode and analyze all four research questions.
Before starting the interviews, I developed a basic codebook (see Appendix C) according
to themes and research questions. I applied line-by-line coding to analyze the data to
include all the details. I categorized the data according to the themes already present in
the codebook. If new themes emerged, they were included in the codebook. Discrepant
cases were handled as they arose. If a participant gave a vague response, I asked probing
questions and asked for more clarification to resolve the discrepancy. A transcript of the
interview was created and made available.
Trustworthiness
In this section I discuss credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability about this research study. I also discuss the ethical procedures that were
related to this research study this research study.
Credibility
Establishing credibility is one of the most important pieces of qualitative research
studies and refers to the accuracy or trustworthiness of the data (Statistic Solutions,
2019). I used member checks to ensure the accuracy and trustworthiness of the data. The
52
interview data were transcribed. The participants were offered a copy of the transcript for
their interview to clarify their responses and correct any errors. The participants declined
to receive a copy of their transcripts.
Transferability
Providing thick, rich descriptions is important and determines how findings are
transferred. I provided detailed explanations about the study and the techniques I used to
collect and analyze the data. I created a researcher’s journal with detailed and thick
descriptions of my experience interviewing the participants. I discussed the interviews
which were conducted via teleconference and I asked the participants to describe their
setting. I described if the interview was taking place before work or after work for my
participant.
Dependability
Dependability refers to whether the results are consistent with the data collected
(Statistics Solutions, 2019). Dependability also referred to the steadiness or reliability of
the process of inquiry. Participants were selected based upon their teaching assignment,
having one year of teaching experience, and using technology in the classroom. The
consent form was sent to all science teachers at the school, and I selected the first five
teachers who sent back their signed consent form. I used member checks and the actual
interview notes to establish reliability. I used the interview notes and transcripts to
triangulate the data. I had an outside researcher examine the data collection process, data
analysis process, and results of the research study to confirm the accuracy of the findings.
The external auditor was another colleague who was familiar with analyzing and
53
interpreting data. I checked the audit trail and looked at how the data were recorded to
establish dependability for the research study.
Confirmability
Confirmability is the extent to which the research findings are confirmed by
others. I used a specific coding procedure to ensure the dependability of the data and kept
a detailed notebook which contained the dates, times, and places of each interview.
Verbatim data were included in the notebook from each interview. Categories and
emerging themes were captured during the interview. The notebook included detailed
notes about the processes I used to collect, analyze, and interpret the data. I placed
specific responses together according to theme and explained the meaning of the theme
and rationale for how it related to the research study, as well as related the theme to
literature, and related to the research.
Ethical Procedures
I received permission from the school district to conduct the research study at the
school. I followed all protocols the school had to conduct the research study. The Walden
Institutional Review Board’s approval was needed to conduct this research study. I
submitted the required application and all related materials, to obtain approval. I attached
approval from the school or school district granting permission to conduct the research.
Once permission was received from The Walden Institutional Review Board, I proceeded
with conducting the research study.
Human participants participated in this research study. The human participants
were treated fairly, and justly, according to the National Institutes of Health. I completed
54
the National Institutes of Health Ethics training in September 2018 and received the
certificate of completion. No undue stress or harm was anticipated in this research study
for the participants.
The research study was conducted in two middle schools where I had previously
worked. I had established professional relationships with some the of the faculty and staff
members at the middle schools. My professional relationship with the faculty and staff
did not impact my role as a researcher for this research study. I abided by the rules set
forth for the qualitative research study where I recorded responses verbatim. I recorded
each participant’s words carefully and asked follow-up questions if I did not understand
them clearly. I developed transcripts of the participant’s responses from the interviews
and kept a reflective journal of my own thoughts and referred to the journal as I looked
over the transcripts of the interviews to avoid confirmation bias.
The data were coded, confidential, and anonymous. To keep their responses
confidential, each participant was assigned a number and letter combination: P1, P2, P3,
P4, and P5. The data were kept in a password-protected secure file on a secure hard drive.
I have the password for the file. I have a secure data back-up system in place in the case
of file corruption or damage. All papers that were generated as a result of this research
study are locked in a secure location with a confidential password that I can only access.
The data will be kept secured for 5 years and then destroyed. The data includes interview
responses, interview audio recordings, transcripts, signed informed consent forms, and
any email communication with the participants.
55
Summary
In Chapter 3, I introduced the chapter and identified the research design, rationale,
and role of the researcher. I established the methodology for this research study. The
methodology was described in detail for replication of the research study. I described the
process for conducting the research study beginning with submitting the application and
ending with how the participants will exit the study. I discussed how the research study
will be conducted and data analysis plan. All relevant appendices were named and
included in the chapter. The issues with trustworthiness were identified and explained. I
explained how I would handle credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability. Ethical procedures were discussed, and strategies to solve issues were
described.
Chapter 4 identifies the data collection and data analysis processes. Tables and
figures are presented as data is analyzed and displayed.
Chapter 4: Results
The purpose of this qualitative research case study was to gather information
about the technological tools that could be adopted to make the teaching of scientific
inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms more meaningful and gainful to the
students.
My focus in this chapter was central to the research questions used in the study:
RQ 1: What strategies do middle school science teachers adopt when using
technology to teach science in the middle school classroom?
56
RQ 2: What are the technological tools that middle school science teachers use to
teach scientific inquiry skills, and which of these tools do teachers perceive to be
more meaningful?
RQ 3: Do the teachers feel that they are quite competent in their pedagogical
knowledge to use the technological tools and strategies they adopt to cover the
content that is used in the middle school classroom?
RQ 4: What are the negative and positive factors that are related to their usage of
technological tools and strategies when teaching science in the middle school
classroom?
In this chapter, I describe the research study setting, along with the external
conditions that may have influenced the participants’ involvement in this study. In
particular, the closure of the schools due to the coronavirus pandemic resulted in changes
to the study. The demographic information relevant to the research study is also
presented. The strategies adopted for data collection and the analysis process are
described. The tactics used for coding, categorizing, and thematic analysis processes, as
well as any resulting discrepancies, are described in detail. Factors associated with
trustworthiness, credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability are
adequately dealt with.
Study Setting
This study was conducted in two suburban middle schools in the southeastern
region of the United States. Both served Grades 6th, 7th, and 8th. The population of the
schools were 905 students in the first school and 525 students in the second school. In the
57
first school, roughly 80% of the student population were White, 18% were Black, and 2%
were Asian, Biracial, or Pacific Islanders. There were 65 faculty and staff members; 11
White female and 2 White male staff members taught science. This campus had an
economically advantaged population of students, where approximately 90% of students
had technological devices and Internet access at home (see Figure 1).
In the second school, roughly 94% of the student population were Black, 6% were
White, and 1% was Asian, Biracial, or Pacific Islanders. There were 45 faculty and staff
members; three White female and five Black female staff members taught science. This
campus had an economically disadvantaged population of students, where approximately
80% of students did not have technological devices and internet access at home (see
Figure 1).
Figure 1. Student population.
This study’s data collection began as the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic
struck the United States. I had difficulty contacting the school principal for the first
school. All nonessential businesses were closed, including schools, colleges, and
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
White
Black
Other (Asian, Pacific
Islander, Biracial)
80
18
2
6
94
1
School #1
School #2
58
universities due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. Due to this difficulty, I
decided to add a second school to the research study. The research agreement with the
school district did not limit me to one school. A second IRB approval was not needed.
I emailed the principal of the first school twice, allowing 2 weeks in-between
emails for a response. I did not receive a response. I finally reached out to former
colleagues who were not related to the research study and asked that they contact the
principal for a response. After 4 weeks of waiting, I received a response with the names
and email addresses of possible participants from the first school. I composed and sent
emails to those potential participant teachers. Only three out of the seven teachers I
emailed consented to participate from the first school. I realized that number of
participants was not sufficient for the research study.
After discussing this issue with my committee, I realized that I should not limit
my study to one middle school in the area. I received prior approval from the school
district to contact any school in their district; therefore, I contacted the principal at a
different middle school for possible teacher participants’ names and email addresses.
After a week of waiting, the principal replied with a list of names and email addresses. I
contacted those teachers via email requesting their participation in the research study. Out
of the eight teachers, only two responded and consented to participate in the research
study, therefore giving me a total of five participants.
Due to the geographic distance between myself and the participants, the
interviews were scheduled to be conducted by teleconference. The five participants
included possible dates and times for their interview in their consent emails. I confirmed
59
the dates and sent each participant a link for their teleconference interview. Shortly after,
there was a rapid and sudden school closures, making it difficult to secure participants for
this research study. Since the original number of participants changed from ten to five, the
Research Committee and URR were also consulted. Due to the unexpected conditions,
approval to use a lesser number was approved as other qualitative case studies have been
conducted with fewer participants (Williams et al., 2017). The lesson plan reviews and
follow up questions helped to make this study as robust as possible under the
circumstances.
Demographics
The participants in this research study were middle school science teachers who
had been teaching middle school science for at least 1 year and have used technology in
their science classroom. The participants were from two different schools. The five
participants were all White female teachers. The range of their years of teaching varied
from 5-30 years. All participants taught science, with one participant teaching math in
addition to science (see Table 1).
Table 1
Demographics
Participant
Years of experience
Grade level
Subject taught
1
18
6th
Science
2
7
6th
Science
3
23
7th
Science
4
30
8th
Science and Math
5
5
7th
Science
60
Data Collection
In this research study, data were collected from three sources, the initial interview,
the follow-up email, and the lesson plans. The participants were middle school science
teachers from two different schools who had been teaching middle school science for at
least one year and had been using technology in the classroom. Each participant
consented to the initial interview via teleconference and consented to submit a lesson
plan. The data were collected via teleconference while the participants were in their
homes, which they felt was the most comfortable and convenient place to conduct the
interview.
Each participant received a confirmation email with the date and time of the
interview, confirming their participation in the research study. At the scheduled time, each
participant logged onto the Zoom link that was sent in confirmation email. The Zoom
teleconference was audio-only. The participants were thanked for their willingness to
participate in the research study, and each participant was reminded that the Zoom
teleconference was being recorded. All five participants were at their home for the
interview in a comfortable location of their choice which was free from distractions.
I began the interview with the first interview question. The participants were
asked about their years using technology to teach scientific content. The participants
discussed their comfort level with technology. They all indicated that they were
comfortable using basic technological devices like laptops and tablets. They also
discussed using technology at home to stay abreast of current technology trends. The
participants’ years using technology spanned from 2–20 years.
61
Each teleconference lasted approximately 60 minutes. The interviews were
recorded using the teleconference software, Zoom. Some participants gave one-word
responses, and I asked probing questions to obtain additional responses from the
participants. I was careful not to monopolize the conversation but made an effort to get
the participants to respond to my questions in detail.
The participants emailed their lesson plans to me. I asked the participants if there
was a universal lesson plan template, they all used, and their responses were no. They
stated that the lesson plans only needed to include the standard, the objective, the focus
question, the procedures, and the assessment. The lesson plans were analyzed according
to the lesson plan codebook (see Appendix I) for the scientific inquiry skill taught,
technology tools used, and technology instruction, as described in the section on data
analysis.
Because the number of participants were limited, I planned to conduct follow-up
interviews with the participants. I sent follow-up emails to the participants approximately
two weeks later, asking the five participants if they could participate in a follow-up
interview. The official school year had ended; therefore, I contacted the participants via
email asking for another teleconference interview and three out of the five agreed to
answer additional questions. The three participants did not consent to another time to
speak with me but expressed interest in having the questions emailed to them. I agreed
and emailed the follow-up questions to the three participants and requested they send
back their responses within three days, and all of them very kindly fulfilled this request.
62
Data Analysis
The process of analysis which includes the interview and lesson plans are
organized by RQs. In this section, I describe the data analysis for each of the three data
points: interviews, lesson plans, and follow-up emails. As the analysis for interview and
follow up differed from that for lesson plan, I have separated them into two sections. I
used the components of the TPACK model to explore how the four themes: teaching
strategies, technology tools used, teacher competency, and positive and negative factors
with technology are embedded into how the participants interact with their students. The
TPACK model combines content knowledge, pedagogy knowledge, and technology
knowledge. All three are needed to successfully teach technology in the classroom.
Initial Interview and Follow-up Emails
Three days following the interviews, each interview was transcribed using an
online transcription service. Since all five participants declined to view their transcripts, I
had a colleague check the transcripts against the interview audio for discrepancies and
errors. None were found; therefore, I copied the transcripts to NVivo to categorize the
data according to pre-established themes. The following pre-established themes were
based on the research questions: teaching strategies, technology tools used, teacher
competency, which covers pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge, and positive
and negative factors with technology. I sent follow-up emails to gather more experiences
of the participants’ use of technology in the classroom and gather more meaningful data. I
composed an email to the participants (see Appendix D). The email was sent within two
weeks of the teleconference, and the participants were asked to respond within three days.
63
The responses to the four questions asked were crossed-referenced with the previous
responses. In comparison, the responses were the same from the initial interview. There
were no new themes that emerged nor new coding needed for the responses.
Data classification was easier when I used the research questions as guides to
create the themes. The coding process yielded the following categories for the themes.
For RQ1, teaching strategies: authentic learning and project-based learning. For RQ2,
technology tools used, hardware, software, and peripherals. For RQ3, teacher
competency: pedagogy knowledge and content knowledge. For RQ4, positive and
negative Factors with Technology: student performance and teacher technology
knowledge. I explained more about these categories under each research question below
(see Table 2).
Table 2
Coding of Data and Research Questions
The next section describes how the theme connects with the research question.
The theme is explained, and examples are included to show how they relate.
Teaching strategies
r1
Authentic learning (online
publishing, podcasts and videos),
project-based learning (student
choice, differentiation)
Technology tools used
r2
Hardware, software, peripherals
Teacher competency
r3
Pedagogy knowledge, content
knowledge
Positive and negative factors with
technology
r4
Student performance, teacher
technology knowledge
Theme
Research
q
uestion
Category
64
Research Question 1
R1: What strategies do middle school science teachers adopt when using
technology to teach science in the middle school classroom?
The theme of this question was teaching strategies. There were two categories that
emerged from the data analysis: authentic learning (online publishing, online podcasts,
and videos) and project-based learning (student choice and differentiation). One authentic
learning strategy was online publishing. P5 stated, “I use Google Slides and post my
lectures online. The students take notes at their own pace reading my post.” Another
authentic learning strategy was using podcasts and online videos to increase content
knowledge with students. For authentic learning, the participants used real-world
knowledge in an online and mobile learning environment, Google Classroom by posting
the tasks that students were expected to complete. P4 stated, “I use Google Classroom to
post my Pendulum Lab videos and directions. Students were expected to follow the
directions to gather data and complete the lab. I want them to understand the value of
mass.” P2 also used Authentic Learning and posted directions for the students to “use the
outside weather stations to gather data about today’s weather and forecast tomorrow’s
weather.” P2 stated further, “students will learn more about weather when they are
interacting with it in real-life.”
Project-based learning (PBL) was used as participants assigned a project that
students had to complete on their own. One PBL strategy was using the Tic-Tac-Toe
Student Choice Board Project Board. P3 stated, “We do PBL. I give students a choice of
at-home projects for students to complete in Google Classroom.” P5 used Project-Based
65
Learning by giving students an option for a formative assessment. P5 stated, “Students
have to make a weather map forecasting the weather for three days, and they have to
show their home on the map. Students can create an actual map or one online.” Followup
questions were not required for RQ 1, because the interview responses were clear and
consistent.
Research Question 2
R2: What are the technological tools that middle school science teachers use to
teach scientific inquiry skills, and which of these tools do teachers perceive to be more
meaningful?
The theme that emerged was technology tools used. Three categories emerged
from the data analysis: hardware, software, and peripherals.
The hardware used included Apple iPads, Google Chromebooks, document
cameras, temperature probes, stopwatches, and calculators. P1, P2, and P5 were given a
classroom set of Google Chromebooks for use in their classroom. P1 stated, “I have a
class set Chromebooks, and I use them daily with my students. I am lucky because not all
teachers received a class set. I don’t have to search and borrow from someone else. I also
have a working document camera.” P3 did not have a classroom set of Google
Chromebooks or Apple iPads. P3 stated, “Students in our grade level, we are one-to-one,
and devices were issued at the beginning of the year, and they keep them and bring them
to class. It could be a Chromebook or an iPad.” P4 had a classroom set of Apple iPads to
use. P 4 stated, “I have iPads and I use those in class with the students and we also use
stopwatches with the Pendulum lab and iPads.” P4 recalled teaching a lesson where the
66
objective was to compare and contrast different animal habitats. In relation to the
technological tools used, P4 wrote:
Students will complete an article analysis about animals, comparing and
contrasting their habitats. The students will use the iPads to read articles and
answer questions about the animal habitats. They can select and complete two
articles, but they MUST receive an 88 or a 100, or it does not count.
P3 and P4 expressed some frustration with always having to borrow Google
Chromebooks or even Apple iPads from another teacher. The participants expressed that
there was a limited number of Google Chromebook carts and sets of Apple iPads in the
school to share. P4 pointed out the difficulties they faced when using technology, “I have
iPads, but I can’t use them all the time for interactive labs, and it was hard to borrow
Chromebooks when the teachers were using them. There are no extras in the school.”
Each participant agreed that due to the limited number of technological tools available,
all teachers cannot have access to technology. P4 also stated, “We are expected to use
technology because we received the grant, but because it’s hard when you can’t access
the technology you need.” It was clear from the opinions expressed by the teachers the
lack of access to technology all of the time affected their technology competency. This
was evident from some of the ideas that emerged when question 4 was discussed with the
participants.
The software that was commonly used included Google Suite software and Adobe
Flash Player. The Google Suite software included: documents, spreadsheets,
presentations, and surveys. All participants used the Google Suite Software along with
67
Google Classroom for student work. P1 stated, “The students use Google Docs to type
their responses and post in the classroom.” P2 stated, “We use Google Slides to take
notes. I post the slides in Google Classroom and the students read them and take notes
from the slides.” P3 adopted a different approach as she stated, “I use spreadsheets and
Google Sheets are easy to connect in Google Classroom for the students to access.”
The Adobe Flash Player software could only be used on Google Chromebooks.
P1 stated that “Chromebooks help kids gather data quickly and in-depth. The flash player
is good for interactive websites, like Nearpod.” P2 and P4 also stated, “the Adobe Flash
Player software does not work on iPads because iPads are not compatible with the Adobe
Flash Player software.” Furthermore, their responses indicated that peripherals are used
as needed. There are headphones, computer mice, and mousepads available. P1 stated, “I
keep a few computer mice in my class for students who struggle with clicking.” P5
stated, “I keep a few headphones available for students. But the expectation is they bring
their own headphone or earbuds to class.”
In the follow up email, I asked the following question related to how technology
tools were used. Q1: Can you describe how you use technology to teach scientific inquiry
skills? P2 described using technology for online videos and virtual labs. P3 stated, “A
typical unit would be an introductory lab and students would explore the information, I
would give a lecture, and then we do a lab.” P5 used technology “mostly for lectures and
videos, to show the students multiple forms of the same thing. I also use technology for
PBL and research.”
68
The second question in the follow-up email was Q2: Are there any specific
technological tools that you favor in your classroom and why? P2, P3, and P5 all replied
Google Chromebooks. The responses were similar “Google Chromebooks use flash
player and students can access online lab simulations.” The coding process also yielded
two subcategories: helpful technology and nonhelpful technology. Helpful technology
was technology that is useful in learning and is multifunctional in use. Nonhelpful
technology was technology that was not useful in learning and was not multifunctional in
use.
Helpful technology referred to using Google Chromebooks because of the
multifunctionality of the device. The participants were adamant that the Google
Chromebook had more versatility to surf the web and use interactive websites. The device
had a screen, touchpad, and keyboard which made it easier to use and navigate websites.
Students were able to type and submit assignments online easily. This was apparent
within the responses of the participants. Helpful technology also referred to other laptops,
tablets, calculators, scales, stopwatches, and other various scientific equipment used in
class. Specific software programs were considered helpful technology. The Adobe Flash
Player software was mentioned by each participant as being important for the success of
accessing interactive websites, like Nearpod and Explore Learning Gizmos: Math and
Science Simulations. Some participants had computer mice; another helpful technology
available for students who struggled with using the touchpad. Students brought their
earbuds or headphones, more helpful technology to use with their device.
69
There were not enough technological devices available for each student to have
one. The lack of available devices was not helpful for student learning. Nonhelpful
technology referred to the use of Apple iPads and their lack of multifunctionality and
limited use. Apple iPads were limited in navigation and accessibility to online labs and
simulations that require Adobe Flash player software. Other nonhelpful technology were
the science probes that were old, outdated, and no longer sustained by the school or
company. A few participants mentioned that they were no longer used because the probes
no longer work properly, and there were newer versions but no funding to purchase them.
“The science department has a few temperature probes that do not work” (Participant 3,
personal communication, May 5, 2020). One participant mentioned there was a cabinet of
nonhelpful technology. P2 stated “there are devices that are either broken, old, or no one
remembers how to use them.”
Research Question 3
R3: Do the teachers feel that they are quite competent in their pedagogical
knowledge to use the technological tools and strategies they adopt to cover the content
that is used in the middle school classroom?
The themes that emerged were teacher competency with pk and ck. P1, P2, P3,
P4, and P5 felt they were competent with using pedagogical knowledge to teach scientific
process skills. P1 stated, “I love teaching labs where we collect data. We use the
Chromebooks to collect and organize it for the lab.” P2, and P4 discussed “liking the
flexibility of technology with hands-on lessons.” P4 stated, “I love technology and being
able to incorporate it into my lessons is great. I make sure my students are focused, and I
70
always monitor them while they are on the computers.” All participants discussed the
content they taught. P1 stated, “I teach earth and physical science concepts. I have been
doing this for many years. I like certain lessons better.” P2 stated, “I prefer scientific
process skills. I love to teach data collection. That is the fun part.” P3 stated, “I love
teaching about the human body. That is my favorite unit. I have been teaching that for
over 12 years now. I think I have it down.” P4 stated, “I love geology. I like teaching
about rocks and minerals. I incorporate the scientific method into it, and I get great
results.” P5 stated, “My experience is growing. Each year I get better with my content.
My favorite is weather and animals. My students and I thrive with it” (see Table 3).
Table 3
Competency Matrix
Content
subject
Technological tool
adopted
Participant
usage
Earth Science
Chromebooks, document
camera, stopwatches
P1, P2, P4
Life Science
Chromebooks, iPads,
temperature probes,
P3
Physical Science
Chromebooks, document
cameras, temperature probes
P1, P2, P3, P5
Scientific Process Skills
Chromebooks, iPads, document
camera, stopwatches,
temperature probes
P1, P2, P3, P4, P5
Some participants spoke about the challenges of teaching scientific inquiry skills
online without the hands-on learning component. P3 stated that “before the coronavirus,
we were able to be hands-on with tech, now that we are virtual, the hands-on is missing.”
P4 also stated, “Now that we are virtual, I am not able to teach like I used to, we had to
adjust, and it is not the same.” Due to the coronavirus pandemic, all teachers felt that they
71
were not as effective as they were when they were teaching face-to-face with their
students. When asked if all students benefit equally from the use of technological tools
before the school closures, all participants replied no. P1 stated, “They benefit from them,
not equally. It is an extra resource for them. There is a misconception that you see it on a
computer screen.” Participant 2 stated, “Learning styles are different. We monitor and
adjust. Kids who use tech will click anything just to turn something in. We try to use
personalized instruction. Not all students benefit from technology or personalized
learning.” P3 stated, “Some kids need more guidance than others. The benefit is the same
collectively. I didn’t get anything. Technology helps all students. There isn’t one way for
all students.” P4 stated, “In a way, it evens the playing field during the school day. Not at
home because technology waivers and differs at home.” P5 stated, “No, Kids are kids and
they distract easily. No program to monitor the computer. They get lost in YouTube and
games. They don’t take the things as seriously.” P5 also displayed pedagogical
knowledge by starting the lesson with a Warm-Up Activity for the students. After the
Warm-Up Activity, a demonstration of the Lab Activity was completed, and questions
were answered by the teacher. Next, students completed individual practice by
completing the activity. Last, students completed an assessment with the Exit Ticket.
Research Question 4
R4: What are the negative and positive factors that are related to their usage of
technological tools and strategies when teaching science in the middle school classroom?
One positive factor with using technology was that Google products were used as
an alternative for displaying science content for students. P3 felt that “utilizing Google
72
Slides and Google Classroom for notetaking was great for allowing the students to work
at their own pace.” P3 also noted that “online lab simulations and Google Forms are easy
for the students to fill out. Therefore, they are used often.” P2 noted that “before the
coronavirus pandemic, Google Classroom was used once a week. Now it is used daily
with online learning. Digital websites like YouTube and Vimeo are used, as well as virtual
field trips.” Other positive factors involved P4 and P5 using online educational games as
incentives for students to complete their work in class. They stated very clearly,
“I use Kahoot as a reward for students. We play a fun round after they finish their work.”
The main negative factor all participants emphasized was about the use of iPads
for learning. The participants felt that iPads only offered a few good features. According
to what the participants stated, it was difficult to use them for any online interactive
websites. They lacked Adobe flash player which is a key component for the interactive
websites to work, and the lack of a keyboard made it difficult for students to log into and
log out of the device properly. The iPads were not built for stability and could not be
placed at an angle on the table for maximum functionality and view. The above point was
proved by the following statements of P1, “iPads are not good for Gizmos, the flash
player will not work at all.” P3 stated “iPads are not easy to log into and out of because
there is no physical keyboard.” The participants said there was no additional funding for
attachments, like portable keyboards and hard iPad cases, to make the iPads more
accommodating for the students to use. In addition, P3 stated, “Once the technology grant
funding ran out, there was nothing left to purchase portable keyboards and stationary hard
iPad cases with.” Another negative factor related to the use of technology was made
73
clearly when P1 and P2 reiterated that students could become bored with technology. P2
stated, “students tend to become bored with the same routine. Using technology daily can
present a problem, because the students tend to rush through their work just to finish
early.”
In the follow-up email, I asked 2 additional questions related to positive and
negative factors with technology usage. Q3: How did they use technology without taking
away from their teaching style? P2 said “Teachers care about what they are talking about
and I want them (students) to hear my voice and I hear their voice. Tech is good to
present information and assess how much they understand of that information, but I talk
to my students. P3 expressed the routine she adopts when she said, “Most of the time I
use technology to display my PowerPoints or videos, I am not a huge technologically
savvy teacher, but I get by.” P5 stated, “it varies and depends on what is being taught in
the classroom. Different content requires different activities and technology.”
Q4: What intrigues you most about technology? P2 stated “As technology
programs grow, more money can be funneled into them leading to a good balance of
technology in the classroom.” P3 said “I learn new things. Having tech helps me do that.
Especially in Astronomy. Learning about new discoveries.” P5 stated, “Students have
different resources in front of them. They can look things up and get a different point of
view.”
74
Lesson Plans
After the data from the interview questions were analyzed I focused on the lesson
plans obtained from the participants and analyzed the content based on the format
provided in Table 4 (see Table 4).
Table 4
Lesson Plan Evaluation Table
Four aspects included in
the lesson plan
Questions used when
evaluating the lesson plan
Relationship to the
research questions
Objectives
Does the objectives
embedded in the lesson
plan show any evidence of
the use of technological
tools?
RQ1
Focused questions
Does the questions
included in the lesson plan
show that different
strategies are used by the
teachers during the lesson?
RQ2
Procedures
Does the procedures
adopted by the teachers
when developing the lesson
show that technological
tools are used by the
teachers during the lesson
RQ2
Assessments
Does the assessment
system adopted show any
indication that the students
are encouraged to use
technology?
RQ3, RQ4
Lesson plans were submitted by each participant and analyzed according to the
four aspects: objectives, focused questions, procedures, and assessments listed in Table 4.
75
Each participant taught either 6th, 7th, or 8th grade science. I noticed that the 6th grade
lesson plans focused on the environment, the 7th grade lesson plans focused on body
systems, and the 8th grade lesson plan focused on physics. The lesson plans were used to
corroborate the participants’ responses to teaching scientific inquiry skills with
technology. The lesson plans were only used for that purpose.
I began my analysis by looking at each lesson plan for the objective and science
content standards. I applied the first question Does the objectives embedded in the lesson
plan show any evidence of the use of technological tools? For each lesson plan, the
response was yes. While the science content standards were different, the scientific
inquiry skill standards were similar. The scientific inquiry skills: gathering data,
communication, and data analysis were all included in the lesson plans. Each lesson plan
included a technology tool, as well as a data collection task. Students were completing
different tasks on the iPads or Chromebooks. P1 noted, “students will log into their
Chromebooks and complete the Daily Science Warmup.” P2 stated, “the teacher will use
the document camera and demonstrate how to fill out the data worksheet.” P3 was
completing the Pendulum Lab and wrote “the students will use a stopwatch to collect data
by recording the number of swings from the pendulum in 30 seconds.” P4 wrote, “the
student will be able to collect data using the triple beam balance scale.” P5 stated, “using
the iPads, students will record themselves giving a 60 second weather forecast.”
I then looked for the focus question and applied the second question Does the
questions included in the lesson plan show that different strategies are used by the
teachers during the lesson? For each lesson plan, the response was yes. The questions
76
included in the lesson plan showed that the teachers used different strategies. The
information derived from the lesson plans related to different aspects were described
below. In her lesson plan P1 wrote, “What is the difference between a metal and a
nonmetal?” The lesson plan also revealed that P1 used an Authentic Learning strategy
where the students had a selection of everyday objects to categorize as metals and
nonmetals. In her lesson plan P2 stated, “the student will jump, hop, and walk backwards,
tracking the time it takes for them to travel 50 feet.” P2 also indicated that she used an
Authentic Learning strategy, applying real-world actions with the activity. The focus
question that related to the above activity was What is the speed of a student has who
hopped 50 feet? P3 wrote, that “she will have the students to count the number of swings
in a 30 second period with a stopwatch.” This Authentic Learning strategy used a
stopwatch to record time. The focus question related to the above activity was How many
swings can the pendulum make in 30 seconds? P4 and P5 used Project Based Learning
strategies. In their lesson plans it was stated that the students will watch videos and
complete different tasks to create personal projects based on the focus question. P4’s
question was “How can the triple beam balance scale be used to weigh objects?” P5’s
question was “How can you forecast the weather?” In the lesson plans of both P4 and P5
the students were made to create graphs and video projects to achieve the intended
objective.
Next, I looked at each lesson plan for the procedures. The third question was
applied, Does the procedures adopted by the teachers when developing the lesson show
that technological tools are used by the teachers during the lesson? For each lesson plan,
77
the response was yes. Each materials section of the lesson plans listed technological tools
like Chromebooks, iPads, stopwatches, triple beam balance scales, and calculators. It was
planned to make the students use technology to complete in-class activities. In the
Procedures section of each lesson plan, the teachers also included the tools in their
directions. According to what was included in the lesson plan of P1, “The students will
use the Chromebook to research the different objects to classify them as metal or
nonmetal.” In P2’s lesson, it was indicated that the “students would use the stopwatch to
time how many times a student can hop in 30 seconds.” In relation to the same P3 had
written “The students will use the calculator to calculate the average number of swings in
30 seconds with three washers.” P4 had indicated that “the students would weigh each
object on the triple beam balance scale and record the mass on their spreadsheet using the
iPad.” P5 wrote in her lesson, “Students will use the iPad to record a 60 second video of
themselves giving a weather forecast.” Thus, it was evident that the contents of the lesson
plans confirmed what the participants responses indicated.
Last, I looked at the lesson plans for the assessments and applied the 4th question:
Does the assessment system adopted show any indication that the students are
encouraged to use technology? For each lesson plan the response was yes. All lesson
plans incorporated technology into the assessment. P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5 incorporated
the Promethean Board to display student work and exit tickets. Students used either the
iPad or Chromebook to complete the exit ticket before leaving class. What the
participants had written in their lesson plans in relation to the assessment system was
described below. For example, in her lesson plan P5 wrote, “What is the importance of
78
weather forecasting to society?” Student had to type their response in the Google Doc and
submit it. P4 wrote, “Students will use their device to complete the Google Form Exit
ticket.” P3, P2, and P1 wanted students “to type their exit ticket response in the Google
Classroom comments under the question.”
Thus, after the comparison of the data from the Lesson Plan Codebook with that
of the data from Interview Codebook it was evident that the content was similar to what
the participants said and what they wrote. One similarity was using technology in the
classroom to deliver information. The participants described using Google Classroom as
an information portal to disseminate information. They also listed Google Classroom in
their lesson plans as a software tool the students used to find and input information. P3
stated “I post all of my assignments in Google Classroom for the students to find. I also
post copies of their documents there.” P3 wrote in the lesson plan that “students will
access Google Classroom to find their assignment for the day.”
Another similarity was using technology to complete classwork and tasks. The
participants described using Google Chromebooks, iPads, and scientific equipment to
complete labs, assessments, and projects. In the lesson plans, they listed the same
equipment under the Materials section and in the Procedures section. P1 said, “We use
Chromebooks to complete our daily science work.” P1 wrote under Procedures “1.
Students will go to their desk and open the Chromebook, log in to Google Classroom,
and complete the daily science work listed there.”
One final similarity was the use of pedagogical skills to teach content. P5 stated,
“I split the class into groups of 4 to make the project more manageable and split the
responsibilities in the group. I can work with each group this way.” P5 wrote, “Students
79
will work in groups of 4 to complete the project. The teacher will assign roles in each
group. The teacher will monitor and adjust each group as needed.”
The lesson plan analysis also revealed each lesson plan had objectives, science
content standards, a focus question, procedures, and an assessment. The teachers used
technology and pedagogical skills to teach science content and scientific inquiry skills to
their students. They used different strategies and materials to engage the students and
keep them focused on learning.
Evidence of Trustworthiness
In this section, I discuss how the factors related to trustworthiness of a study
namely credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability are safeguarded in
this research study.
Credibility
Establishing credibility was one of the most important pieces of qualitative
research studies and referred to the accuracy or trustworthiness of the data (Statistic
Solutions, 2019). In my study, member checks were used to ensure the accuracy and
trustworthiness of the data. The interview data were transcribed, and the opportunity was
given to the participants to review their responses. The participants opted not to review
their responses; therefore, they did not receive a copy of their interview transcript.
However, the follow-up email questions allowed me to ensure the accuracy of their
responses.
80
Transferability
Providing thick, rich descriptions were important and can determine how findings
can be transferred. I provided detail explanations about the study and the techniques used
to collect and analyze the data. I created a researcher’s journal and detailed my
experience interviewing the participants. All interviews were conducted via
teleconference. All participants were at home when the interview was conducted due to
the coronavirus pandemic. The above adopted measures ensured the transferability of this
study.
Dependability
Dependability refers to whether the results were consistent with the collected data
and the reliability of the inquiry process. (Statistics Solutions, 2019). I used member
checks, interview notes, and the follow-up interview notes, as well as analyzing the
content of the lesson plans to establish the reliability and triangulate data. An external
auditor was used to examine the data to establish dependability for the research study.
The results were consistent with the data. The inquiry process was reliable and conducted
in a consistent way.
Confirmability
Confirmability was the extent to which the research findings were confirmed by
others. I used a specific coding procedure to ensure the validity of the data and kept
detailed notes which contained the dates, times, and places of each interview. Verbatim
data were included in each interview. All interviews were transcribed. All emerging
themes were captured during the interview. Specific responses were grouped according to
81
the theme, and the explanation for how it related to the research study was noted. I also
examined the results that emerged with the existing information in the literature review.
Results
The results of the analysis for all three data points are discussed and organized by
RQs. RQ1 results revealed that the participants used authentic learning and project-based
learning (PBL) as strategies to teach scientific inquiry skills to students. The participants
discussed how they used different strategies like real-time feedback with online
assessments and posting assignments in the Google classroom to teach scientific inquiry
skills. The lesson plans submitted by the participants showed their use of Google
Classroom as a real-time location to post assignments and feedback for each student. The
lesson plans also reflected the strategy used, listing the websites and online assessments
along with instructions for completion. As participants described the strategies they used
in their classroom, the themes became evident in their responses. All participants used the
strategy of differentiation for their students by offering classwork in different ways. P1
stated, “It really depends on what we are doing. Chromebooks are already assigned to a
seat. When they sit at a seat, they use that Chromebook to access Google Classroom for
their lessons.” P2 stated, “I use Google Slides for note taking. I also use Achieve. The
students can read an article and take a test on a science related topic.” P3 indicated, “I use
different variations. I do different things. A typical unit would be an introductory lab to
explore information, then a lecture and a lab.” P4 affirmed, “we use Google Classroom
with our Google Chromebooks. I use Nearpod, Socrative, and Google Tools.” Participant
82
5 stated, “I show videos and I conduct virtual labs.” The results indicated that the
strategies the teachers used increased the understanding of scientific inquiry skills with
students. The students were able to apply real world tasks, and personalized learning to
better understand science content and skills.
RQ2 results revealed that different technological tools are used to teach scientific
inquiry skills. Middle school science teachers used laptops, tablets, calculators, scales,
stopwatches, triple beam balance scales, rulers, probes, and a variety of other scientific
equipment to teach scientific inquiry skills in the classroom. All technological tools were
noted in the materials section of the lesson plan. P3 stated, “We use temperature probes in
class as well as iPads or Chromebooks.” Software is also an important aspect of
technology that is used in the classroom. The participants prefer to use a file-sharing
software like Google Classroom to disseminate information to students. P1 stated, “I post
all of my lessons and activities online in our Google Classroom. Students log in and
complete the activity.” They also use different online websites. P4 stated, “We use
Nearpod for interactive lessons.”
The participants felt they were competent in their technology knowledge after
they were trained to use different technological tools. Each participant was a part of the
technology cohort at their school and received training to use Google Chromebooks and
Apple iPads. P2 stated, “I first began using technology in 2003 in my first year of
teaching. I was at a technology school and a part of a cohort of teachers who received
training for laptops, and LCD projects to use in class.” P5 stated, “After the technology
training, I felt better about using my iPads with the students. I became better with them.”
83
The results indicated that the teachers were competent using technology to teach and
having students use technology to complete their activities in class. The teachers used
different software programs and a variety of technology to engage student learning. The
teachers all used Google Classroom as an information portal for students and blended
technology into their classroom activities.
RQ3 results revealed that middle school science teachers felt they were competent
in their pedagogical knowledge to use the technological tools and strategies they adopted
to cover content prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic. P5 stated, “before Covid-19, I taught
PBL in the classroom. The students collaborated together on projects and used computers
for research. Now, they are prepared because they have to do it independently at home.”
Participants created effective teaching and learning environments for their students. P1
stated, that “when you give clear instructions, it makes gathering data easier, and helps
with a more cohesive lesson.” The lesson plans listed clear instructions for the students to
complete their assignments. The lesson plans listed the online websites, the tools needed
to complete the work, and the assessment, which the teachers posted in the Google
Classroom. The participants expanded on their content knowledge with lessons that met
the objective and incorporated the use of technology. P4 stated, “Now we create lessons
with exclusive online content because of COVID-19. I make sure students are able to
learn the content 100% with the technology. Everything is now online” The results
indicated that pedagogical knowledge was consistently applied before and during the
COVID-19 Pandemic. The teachers were confident they were using the necessary skills
to engage students with content to increase their knowledge of science.
84
According to the results that emerged from the study in RQ4, some negative
factors related to the use of technological tools and strategies when teaching science in
the middle school classroom were revealed. Middle school science teachers felt too much
technology exposure with students was a negative aspect of technology use. P1, P2, P3,
P4, and P5 all agree that overuse of technology can be “damaging” to student engagement
with technology. P3 and P4 spoke about “using full technology”, and that it can be
difficult to have students engaged at all times. Both participants said it was challenging.
The lesson plans had timing listed for each step of the instruction. The teachers listed
how long a student should spend at each stage of the lesson. P5 spoke about the
challenges keeping student engaged with technology. P5 has been teaching less than five
years and tried to use technology daily despite classroom management concerns. P5
recounted that students “do not want to do the assignments sometimes. They abuse
technology and try to opt-out of work.” The results indicated that technology was useful
but not always easy to engage with students. P5 also stated, “The students can become
less complacent with using technology and are less willing to complete their work with
technology.”
As learning was moved online, another negative factor was that teachers were
unsure about whether students understood the scientific inquiry skills. Students had to use
whatever technological tools they had at home to complete classwork. P1 discussed the
challenges with teaching in an online environment, “students are losing focus. I struggle
with getting them to complete work. Some students are not logging online. There was no
accountability at home for some students.” P2 and P4 agreed, adding, “parents are not
85
holding students accountable.” P3 and P5 discussed a different point of view, recalling
that “parents are not traditional teachers and they have been thrust into the role of
educator with no training on content, technology, or pedagogy. Online learning is not as
efficient as face-to-face.”
Additionally, the results from the research study revealed some positive factors
related to the use of technological tools and strategies when teaching science in the
middle school classroom. All 5 participants agreed that the main positive factor was
“individualized learning for students.” The positive aspect of using technology in the
middle school science classroom was that teachers differentiate with students. The
participants discussed their progress with student learning and technology usage. P4
recalled “being able to gauge a student’s understanding because you are physically
present with them. It was easier to interact and know if a student has grasped the concept
when you can see their face.” P5 acknowledged, “it’s great to use technology as a whole
class and troubleshoot with students as they worked. It was simpler to handle issues with
technology when you have the device in front of you to see the issues.” P3 discussed,
“hands-on strategies with students and being able to demo activities with the students.
Students received immediate feedback on their work effort and skillset.” P2 described a
typical day with students as “picking up their iPad when they come into the classroom.
Students then begin their classwork for the day, which is in the Google Classroom. As
they work, I can circulate around and help them complete their notes, graphing, and
explanations.” P1 articulated the “comfort with being in front of the students as they are
taught. There is a nostalgic feeling of that direct communication when I see my students.”
86
Precoronavirus Pandemic versus Postcoronavirus Pandemic
According to the participants’ perceptions that emerged from the study, student
engagement changed during the coronavirus pandemic (see Table 5). The study
Table 5
Student Engagement with Technology
Participants
Student engagement
before coronavirus
pandemic (%)
Student engagement
during coronavirus
pandemic (%)
P1
90
60
P2
95
75
P3
100
80
P4
100
80
P5
80
70
results presented information that gave an overview of teaching strategies used before the
coronavirus pandemic and after the pandemic happened during the school closures.
Teaching Strategies that were used prior to the pandemic were no longer used. Before the
Pandemic, learning was presented face-to-face with teachers in the classroom with their
students. P5 stated, “Before COVID, we did Project-Based Learning. Students were able
to collaborate on projects together, use the computers for research, and then present to the
class.”
All participants agreed that the pandemic has changed education going forward.
The participants reported that their adjustment to a virtual environment was still ongoing.
87
Before the coronavirus pandemic, all participants noted that technology was not used
daily, but when it was used, students were engaged because the technology was limited in
the classroom. The participants stated that now technology was used daily, and students
may not be as engaged because all learning, in multiple subjects, were online. P3 stated,
Using it every day, they get burned out. I do not use technology every day. I don’t
want my students to take it for granted. Kids crave personal attention. That is hard
because everybody has technology. Daily online learning may be overwhelming
to students.
Discrepant cases existed when P1, P2, P3, and P4 agreed that data collection was
a skill they taught more often than others but, P5 did not. I asked the participants to
elaborate more. P3 stated, “I teach a Pendulum Lab where students use a stopwatch to
collect data by recording the number of swings from the pendulum in 30 seconds.” P2
stated “Gathering data is more easily manipulated with technology.” P5 did not agree and
contradicted their response. P5 stated, that “data collection is not easy for my students.
Research is used more in my classroom to create projects. My students love it.” The
responses revealed the teachers’ have the ability to use technology as an innovative
instructional technique. The differences were centered around their technology use and
objectives to teach.
The data revealed that the participants believed technology was a useful tool to
teach scientific inquiry in the classroom. Participants used strategies such as authentic
learning (online publishing, podcasts and videos) and project-based learning (student
choice, differentiation) to teach. The technology tools that were used consisted of
88
hardware such as Google Chromebooks, Apple iPads, and scientific lab equipment. The
software used was Adobe Flash Player, Google Classroom, and various websites.
Peripherals like a computer mouse and earbuds were available when needed. Teacher
competency revealed that pedagogy was blended with content knowledge to teach
students. The participants were comfortable teaching scientific inquiry skills with
technology, tapping into their extensive knowledge about the subject matter. The positive
factors that arose from using technology to teach scientific inquiry skills were using
specific software, like Google, that offered a suite of products. Digital websites like
YouTube, Vimeo, and educational games like Kahoot were useful to engage students and
offer enrichment to the lesson. The negative factors that were revealed were the use of the
iPads for learning. The iPads were difficult to use with peripherals, like a computer
mouse. Students could also become bored and disengage from technology due to overuse.
Students were able to differentiate the lesson for the students, having the students perform
better. The recent coronavirus pandemic changed this blended approach, and all teaching
and learning became virtual. eLearning or virtual learning increased the amount of
technology use with students, prompting some positive and negative factors. Pedagogy
was essential during this time because classroom management was virtual, and teachers
had to rely on their skills to impart knowledge to students.
Summary
The results of this research study confirmed that middle school science teachers
successfully used different strategies with technology to teach scientific inquiry skills.
Middle school science teachers used Authentic Learning and PBL strategies to teach
89
science in the middle school classroom. The technological tools that middle school
science teachers used to teach scientific inquiry skills were laptops, tablets, calculators,
scales, stopwatches, and a variety of scientific equipment. They prefer to use a filesharing
software like Google Classroom to disseminate information to students on devices like
Google Chromebooks.
The teachers felt they were quite competent in their pedagogical knowledge to use
the technological tools they had been trained to use. They used those tools in the
classroom with science content for optimum learning. They used pedagogical knowledge
to make learning more efficient. They also felt there were positive and negative factors
with using technology in the classroom. The negative factors involved technology
overuse with students, and technology not working properly. The positive factors
involved using technology to differentiate with students, therefore creating a personalized
learning experience.
In Chapter 5, I reiterate the purpose and nature of this research study. I summarize
the key findings of the research study. I describe the findings and how they relate to the
literature. I analyze the findings and share how they relate to TPACK and relevant
literature. The limitations of trustworthiness are described. Recommendations for further
research are made, and implications for positive social change are described. The
methodological implications are described, and recommendations for social change are
given. The chapter ends with a message that captured the essence of the research study.
90
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
This qualitative case study investigated the best practices used by teachers with
technology to teach scientific inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms. While
technology tools have been used, little was known about which devices students learned
from the best or which devices teachers preferred to use.
To reiterate, the research questions were:
RQ 1: What strategies do middle school science teachers adopt when using
technology to teach science in the middle school classroom?
RQ 2: What are the technological tools that middle school science teachers use to
teach scientific inquiry skills, and which of these tools do teachers perceive to be more
meaningful?
RQ 3: Do the teachers feel that they are quite competent in their pedagogical
knowledge to use the technological tools and strategies they adopt to cover the content
that is used in the middle school classroom?
RQ 4: What are the negative and positive factors that are related to their usage of
technological tools and strategies when teaching science in the middle school classroom?
The findings of this qualitative case study confirmed that middle school science
teachers successfully used different strategies with technology to teach scientific inquiry
skills. Middle school science teachers have preferences for specific technologies and
software. Technology can foster a negative attitude for students when it is overused with
students. Technology can foster a positive attitude for students when it is used in different
ways with students.
91
Interpretation of the Findings
The findings related to RQ1 revealed that, in alignment with the literature, middle
school science teachers used different strategies with technology, such as authentic
learning and project-based learning, to teach scientific inquiry skills. For example,
Williams et al., (2017) and Bippert, (2019) confirmed that teachers used real-world,
innovative technological techniques with students to engage them in the curriculum. In
Williams et al.’s, (2017) research, they discussed students (a) using flip camera
technology to make movies about news stories, (b) using search engines like Google, (c)
using presentation software on mini-computers and (d) using tablets to create projects.
Students also used collaborative online tools, like Wallwisher, to share and edit
information (Williams et al., 2017). According to Bippert, (2019), students gained a sense
of ownership and pride in their academics.
The findings of this study confirmed that, to teach, the participants also used
realworld technological techniques, differentiation, and projects. Real-world situations
were discussed daily in their classroom for students to understand the content. Students
used the Internet on Google Chromebooks and Apple iPads to research information for
projects assigned as a group and individually.
The findings from RQ2 contradicted the research. According to Hilton (2016),
Tokmak (2015), and Minshew and Anderson (2015), iPads were used successfully to
teach content to students. In their studies, preloaded apps on the iPads were used mainly
to complete preassigned activities. Students were not allowed to go to websites that were
not assigned. In my research study, however, the participants did not find iPads useful to
92
teach scientific inquiry skills to students. According to the participants, the
iPads’preloaded apps were useful only for teaching science content. The iPads lacked
specific software that was critical for using online simulations and online labs to teach
scientific inquiry skills. This software was found on the Google Chromebooks, but not
the Apple iPads. Unfortunately, there were not enough laptops available for all students to
have one in the school.
In my study, the participants used different hardware like laptops, tablets,
calculators, scales, stopwatches, along with a variety of scientific equipment to teach
scientific inquiry skills. A file-sharing software, Google Classroom, was used by all
participants to post their content, materials needed, and activities for students to
complete. Peripherals like computer mice and headphones were available for use if a
student needed them. According to the study from Tokmak, 2015, laptops were used
successfully in the classroom with students. The teachers used them to design educational
computer games based on their curriculum, and students were able to use the laptops to
complete the educational computer games. In my study, Google Chromebooks were used
by teachers successfully to teach content. The Google Chromebook used specific
software to access interactive websites for learning. They also used Adobe Flash Player
software that enabled more online lab simulations, and software to be accessed at school.
The findings that emerged from RQ3 confirmed teacher competency depends on
their content and pedagogy knowledge. The research of Yuksel, (2019) revealed that
participants used pedagogical knowledge to incorporate technology into their content. It
was noted in their lesson plans, that proper planning and preparation would benefit their
93
teaching. As Padmavathi, (2016) and Tondeur et al., (2016) pointed out, pedagogy
influenced how teachers used technology to teach content. In their studies, teachers had
traditional teacher pedagogy knowledge to integrate technology into their content.
Teachers were responsible for learning their content knowledge, learning the technology,
and using their pedagogy to teach and maintain their classroom. In my study, the
participants also had suitable pedagogical and content knowledge. With this knowledge,
they were able to incorporate technology into their lessons to effectively teach scientific
inquiry skills. They used pedagogy to teach scientific inquiry skills with technology. They
also planned their activities in their lesson plans, listed the needed materials, and
executed their lessons accordingly.
According to the findings that emerged from RQ 4, it was confirmed that negative
and positive factors can arise from technology use in the classroom. Weinthrop et al.,
(2016) discussed how students would no longer engage in different technological
programs when they have mastered it. In my study, student academic performance was
dependent upon the student’s perspective on technology. The participants referred to how
bored the students became with technology. They rushed through their work, to turn off
the technology, thus lowering their academic performance. Another negative factor was
the participants did not have a strong technology learning knowledge base. They attended
one technology training when they first began to use technology in the classroom, but no
additional training was offered afterwards. They lacked the needed support for essential
training to increase their technology knowledge base. Garba et al., (2015) confirmed that
teachers needed training to use different technologies. There was a lack of available
94
technological tools for training, and connectivity issues were problematic. The teachers
were in underprivileged economic, rural areas, and Internet connectivity was not stable.
The teachers were willing to learn but did not have the needed support or capabilities.
There were also some positive factors that emerged from this study that confirmed
the findings in the literature. For example, in the study of McKnight et al., (2016), the
teachers differentiated with technology to teach students. They used word processing
software, emails, and different Internet websites with students. They also used real-time
feedback, such as checking and grading homework as soon as it was submitted, to further
tailor a student’s academic progress. In my study, it was surmised that the participant
teachers were comfortable differentiating instruction and using technology effectively.
The participants differentiated instruction with students by also using technology to teach
students. They assigned online word processing software for students to create
presentations and documents. They also created enrichment opportunities by assigning
different interactive science websites with students.
Since starting this research, the COVID-19 pandemic suddenly changed the way
teachers were teaching, and all learning moved to an online setting for the remainder of
the school year. However, students and teachers were not prepared to move to a virtual
environment. Some teachers, like the participant teachers in this research study, had to
adjust to a 100% virtual environment to teach. Virtual learning increased during the
pandemic. Science requires a hands-on component that is not being achieved during this
time because physical learning is limited (Mineo, 2020). Technology changed from being
95
used as a tool, to becoming the primary mode of teaching and learning for students, as
seen in Table 5 in Chapter 4.
Limitations of the Study
The research study was limited to two schools and five teachers. The study was
initially planned for one school with ten participants. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
volunteers were limited. I only received responses from 3 out of 11 teachers who were
identified and contacted. After receiving permission from my committee members,
another school was contacted for volunteers to participate in the research study. From the
second middle school, I only received 2 out of 8 responses. I again contacted my
committee members for guidance and gained permission to continue with five
participants. Another limitation was the technology used in this research study. Within the
two schools, technology was limited to predominately Apple iPads and Google
Chromebooks. The participants had mixed feelings about using these technological tools
to teach due to the functionality of the tools.
The participants were at home during the teleconference interview. Since this
teleconference interview was in a different state and time zone, I was unable to note body
language and other physical nuisances from the participants. Each participant was in their
own home and could not be influenced from other participants in the study. As a former
science teacher, my personal experience teaching science and using technology did not
impact how the data were reported. I accurately recorded and decoded the data, using a
data collection template to keep all responses orderly and maintained. I kept a reflective
96
journal to avoid blending my thoughts with the responses of the participants and
accurately record them.
Recommendations
Based on the findings that emerged from my study, it would be essential to
conduct more studies with more participants. This research study only had five
participants, and the information derived was limited. The recommendation to conduct
this research study with more participants could deliver more detailed information for the
case study. Having more detailed information could increase the richness of the data,
adding more quotes and viewpoints to the research.
Also, it could be recommended that in future studies, the researchers should
adhere to better ways of collecting data without resorting to online data collection, and
face-to-face interviews must be adopted. Using face-to-face interviews as a data
collection method would offer another facet of data, like body language and other
nuances. This data could offer another layer of information about the participants, like
behavior.
Another recommendation was that more studies should be conducted using a large
group of participants from different backgrounds. Teachers from different backgrounds
may feel differently about using technology to teach and may use different technological
devices other than iPads and Chromebooks. This information could result in cultural,
ethnic, or religious differences about technology use.
Future research may investigate technology as a tool and as a means for
instruction as more schools and instruction go online. The COVID-19 pandemic has been
97
extremely hard for educators. The traditional way of teaching changed overnight when
schools suddenly closed. More research could be conducted about how technology
knowledge would be an important aspect of teacher education and a possible criterion for
certification. Teachers would need to have a more advanced technology knowledge to
teach in a classroom.
Implications for Positive Social Change
This research study contributes information to help teachers learn more about how
to use technology more meaningfully. Teachers gain information about which
technological tools and software are helpful in teaching scientific inquiry skills. This
research study could be shared with other school districts to assist with creating
meaningful science and technology lesson plans and content. On a national scale, the
results of this research study can be shared with the National Common Core Science
Standards website to add as a resource for strategies, technology tools, pedagogy
knowledge, content knowledge, and positive and negative factors utilizing technology to
teach scientific inquiry skills. Sharing the findings of the study with other schools would
help those schools to improve their science instruction, which leads to social change.
Since it was found that teachers had very limited knowledge of some aspects of
technologies that could be used in the classroom, organizing more training camps for the
teachers would lead to more important social changes within the classroom. It is strongly
recommended that more opportunities be provided for teachers to have proper
methodological training so that they are equipped to handle technology more effectively.
98
Technology is at the forefront of education in the 21st century. Technology is used
in public and private schools from K-12 education to colleges and universities. Positive
social change can be achieved when information is shared between teachers, schools, and
school districts. If the strategies and technological tools that are used to teach scientific
inquiry skills are shared, science education will continue to grow exponentially. The use
of various technological tools could lead to investing and sustaining different
technologies by the school. If teachers had access to training to use different types of
technology, they could have the ability to use those technologies to differentiate with
more with students in the classroom. Pedagogy knowledge, content knowledge, and
positive and negative factors are shared with others to show them how to teach scientific
inquiry skills in the middle school classroom.
Teaching practices have altered as teachers continue to adapt to new changes due
to the COVID-19 pandemic. New scientific discoveries happen daily, almost as much as
new technologies are created. As teachers look to their future in the classroom, they want
to know that their contributions to the field of science education matter. They want
support, training, and technology to assist with their best efforts to teach. Technology has
the potential to enhance education and build better relationships between teachers,
students, the community, and the world.
Teachers have expressed differences when using technology in face-to-face
settings in the classroom. Students used less technology in a face-to-face setting because
science was more hands-on. Teachers were able to build strong relationships with
students. Academics were consistent. Social interactions were more prevalent between
99
students. The limitations with technology were not as great because technology was used
as a supporting tool.
Teachers have also expressed the limitations of using technology daily in a virtual
setting. They miss the face-to-face interactions with their students. The virtual
interactions do not allow teachers to build strong relationships with their students.
Students are not growing academically, socially, or behaviorally like they normally would
during a regular school day. The COVID-19 pandemic has truly interrupted the world of
the classroom.
Conclusion
Technology and science are always evolving and changing. This research study
gathered information about technological tools that could be adopted to teach scientific
inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms. Problem Based Learning and
Authentic Learning were two strategies that were used successfully in this research study
to teach scientific inquiry skills. Real-world applications and projects were also used to
teach science in the middle school classroom. The technology used by teachers helped to
create documents, charts, graphs, and solve problems. Google Chromebooks and Apple
iPads were used with students, but Google Chromebooks were preferred based upon
software compatibility with interactive websites. The technology required for teaching
scientific inquiry skills may be different from that for teaching content.
Pedagogy and content knowledge are needed for the successful integration of
technology into the classroom. The teachers knew their content and successfully taught it
while managing students in-person and virtually, thus proving that technology was no
100
longer a tool for enrichment; it was used as a part of everyday teaching and learning
online. One positive aspect of using technology to teach was that learning became
enhanced in the classroom, thus providing collaboration among students and providing
opportunities for authentic and project-based learning. One negative aspect was that
learning could become mechanical and social skills become poor because of technology
overuse, and a lack of social interactions with others.
Teachers are at the forefront of science education. Teaching scientific inquiry
skills is an important part of learning how to navigate the environment. Teachers need
support and access to technology that can jumpstart the workings of young scientific
minds; and teaching with technology can make the difference between a student that
loves science or hates science. This study is essential to the field of science education and
educational technology because the information shared can help science teachers become
efficient at selecting and using preeminent technologies to teach scientific inquiry skills
in the classroom.
Scientific inquiry skills have been taught in middle school science classrooms in a
variety of ways (Williams, Nguyen, & Mangan, 2017). However, middle school science
teachers have struggled with knowing which technological tools are efficient for teaching
them (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015; Liu, Wang, Zhang, & Yan, 2017). Teachers can be
successful implementing technology when they know how to use technology
appropriately (McKnight et al., 2016). Thus, this qualitative case study was designed to
provide data that can help science teachers select and use preeminent technologies when
teaching scientific inquiry skills in the classroom. This study may foster positive social
101
change by justifying the use of technology when scientific inquiry skills are taught in the
middle school classroom.
In this chapter, I describe the literature—and the gap in the knowledge—on using
technology to teach scientific inquiry skills. I state the research questions and identify
and define the conceptual framework. The nature of the study is provided as well as
important definitions. The assumptions, scope and delimitations, limitations, and
significance of the research study are also discussed. I then summarize the main points of
this chapter as I move to Chapter 2.
Background
Various terms have been used to describe scientific inquiry in education. For
example, Fraser (2017) defined scientific inquiry skills as inquiry-based teaching. Yuksel
(2019) defined them as using appropriate techniques and methods to develop and nurture
the science development of reasoning skills, specifically used the term scientific
reasoning skills. Williams et al. (2017) defined these skills as process skills in science.
For this study, I used the term scientific inquiry skills.
In addition to various terms used, scientific inquiry is being taught in various
ways. The traditional hands-on approach is beginning to be replaced with technology that
engages students and teaches scientific inquiry process skills (Williams et al., 2017).
Twenty-first century middle school science classrooms have changed with the placement
of technological tools such as desktop and laptop computers; they teach lessons with
different strategies and technological activities (Lehtinen & Viiri, 2017; McKnight et al.,
2016). But middle school science teachers who have used technology in the classroom
102
have different strengths and weaknesses when using them (Minshew & Anderson, 2015).
Thus, schools, school districts, and technology driven companies have offered teachers
training, support, and modeling to help them sustain the use of technology (Bilici, Guzey,
& Yamak, 2016). As technology training has increased, the use of technology in the
middle school classroom has improved (Rutten, van der Veen, & van Joolingen, 2015).
Nevertheless, there are no nationally known databases where science teachers can find
information about how other teachers use technology to teach scientific inquiry skills;
therefore, teachers depend on other teachers to reveal their best practices and strategies to
assist each other (McKnight et al., 2016). This study was conducted to gather information
about how middle school science teachers use technology in the classroom to teach
scientific inquiry skills.
Problem Statement
The problem addressed in this qualitative case study was that even though
technology and technological tools are increasingly used to teach scientific inquiry skills
in middle school classrooms, knowledge has been lacking as to teachers’ best practices
for making their teaching more meaningful. Schools have placed a variety of
technological devices in classrooms for teachers to teach technology-rich lessons (Bilici
et al., 2016; McKnight et al., 2016; Rutten et al., 2015). But teachers have been unsure of
which technology works best to teach specific scientific inquiry skills, especially with no
database on which tools that might fit the content of a lesson (Lehtinen & Viiri, 2017;
McKnight et al., 2016). Thus, more information is needed about best practices (Kihoza,
Zlotnikova, Bada, & Kalegele, 2016; Liu et al., 2017). To identify different technological
103
tools and strategies for teaching scientific inquiry skills, this study gathered best practices
from middle school science teachers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to gather information about the
technological tools that could be adopted to make the teaching of scientific inquiry skills
in middle school science classrooms more meaningful and gainful to students. Teaching
with different technological tools requires teachers to have basic knowledge of
technology (Kihoza et al., 2016), so can integrate new technology into their practice and
make the students engage in learning (McKnight et al., 2016). The focus of this study was
to discover the technological tools that have been adopted in the teaching process to make
student learning more meaningful and productive.
Research Questions
The following four research questions guided the study:
RQ1: What strategies do middle school science teachers adopt when using
technology to teach science in the middle school classroom?
RQ2: What are the technological tools that middle school science teachers use to
teach scientific inquiry skills, and which of these tools do teachers perceive to be more
meaningful?
RQ3: Do the teachers feel that they are quite competent in their pedagogical
knowledge to use the technological tools and strategies they adopt to cover the content
that is used in the middle school classroom?
RQ4: What are the negative and positive factors that are related to their usage of
technological tools and strategies when teaching science in the middle school classroom?
104
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this case study was the technological, pedagogical,
and content knowledge (TPACK) model, which was conceptualized by Mishra and
Koehler in 2006. (Other frameworks considered are noted in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.)
There are three main components in this framework: content knowledge, technology
knowledge and pedagogy knowledge (Koi, Chai, & Lee, 2015). Learning is the
foundation to broaden knowledge, understand scientific investigation, and implement
efficient teaching methods for science (Luthfia & Atun, 2018). The TPACK model can be
used to improve scientific literacy skills because the model combines content knowledge,
pedagogy knowledge, and technology knowledge (Luthfia & Atun, 2018).
Further, the skills needed to successfully teach technology in the classroom can be
acquired with the TPACK model (Koi et al., 2015).
In this case study, I used the components of the TPACK model to explore how
middle school science teachers used pedagogy to incorporate technology into their
content. The components of the model were used to create interview questions that
describe how well middle school science teachers adopted technology to teach scientific
inquiry skills. The TPACK model was used in three ways. First, it was used to explore the
teachers’ content knowledge (i.e., strategies for different objectives), where the focus was
on the curriculum. Second, it was used to explore the technology knowledge (i.e.,
technological tools incorporated into teaching practices) of the teachers, with emphasis on
the type of devices used in the classroom. Third, the TPACK model was used to explore
the pedagogical knowledge of the teachers, with an emphasis on the teacher’s knowledge
105
of educational strategies and guidelines that were important to the learner. The middle
school teachers shared their confidence with using technology to teach scientific inquiry
skills. They shared the positive and negative factors they experienced with using
technology and incorporating technology into their classroom. The TPACK model is
further explained in Chapter 2.
Nature of the Study
A qualitative case study design was used for this research study. The case study
design answers the how questions, which is a good approach when the phenomenon under
study is not distinguishable from its context (Hilton, 2016; Tokmak, 2015;
Williams, et al., 2017). The case study approach also involves an intensive review of one
or a few subjects to understand the larger group of interest and to gain a holistic view of
the research issues and problems (Krusenvik, 2016). The case study approach was used to
identify the best practices that middle school science teachers used with technological tools
that they adopted to teach scientific inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms.
These teachers have used different technological tools to teach the different objectives of
scientific inquiry skills (McKnight et at., 2016; Williams et al., 2017), but positive and
negative factors have affected their ability to use technology. Other researchers have used
the case study approach to document how teachers have used technology in the classroom
as well as their experiences and perceptions using technology to teach scientific inquiry
skills in the classroom (McKnight et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2017).
I interviewed middle school science teachers about their technology use in the
classroom to teach scientific inquiry skills. The only criterion required for participating in
this study was working as a middle school science teacher at the selected research site
106
and using technology in their classroom for at least a year. The collected data were
analyzed and coded to identify the resulting themes.
Definitions
The following definitions, as found in the literature, are related to this case study.
Case study: A process of using in-depth questioning or examination (Williams et
al., 2017). The researcher observer questioned the teacher’s plan working with the
students.
Content knowledge: An integrated form of knowledge with pedagogical
knowledge and technology knowledge that together makes TPACK (Koi et al., 2015).
Content knowledge is the content that teachers study specifically like Science, Math,
Social Studies, or English.
Information and communication technology (ICT)-based learning: Twenty-first
century tool used to support cognitive, metacognitive, and epistemic learning. (Koi et al.,
2015). ICT- based learning is using technology to teach.
National Science Education Standards (NSES): A set of standards used by science
teachers to teach inquiry and use technology (Weintrop et al., 2016). The NSES standards
area set of national science standards used by teachers to teach science, scientific inquiry
skills, and incorporate technology into the process.
Next Generation Science Standards: Science standards where emphasis is placed
on authentic investigation in the classroom (Weintrop et al., 2016). The Next Generation
Science Standards are the new science standards with an emphasis on investigating and
solving problems.
107
Pedagogical content knowledge: The ability of a teacher to pedagogically adapt
content to diverse student populations. (Kihoza et al., 2016). This knowledge refers to the
blending of pedagogy and content knowledge together to teach students.
Pedagogical knowledge: An integrated form of knowledge with content
knowledge and technology knowledge that together makes TPACK (Koi et al., 2015).
Pedagogical knowledge is how teachers understand how to teach students.
Process skills: Scientific concepts such as erosion and hypothesis testing
(Williams et al., 2017). Process skills were the basic scientific content that were needed to
learn and understand science.
Qualitative research: Scientific data collected by observation and interviews (Liu
et al., 2017). Video observation was used to record and observe classroom teachers.
Substitute, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (SAMR): A conceptual
framework used to plan, assess, and evaluate technology use in the classroom (Kihoza et
al., 2016). SAMR is a framework that can be used to assess the use of technology in the
classroom.
Scientific inquiry skills: Scientific inquiry skills is the teaching of process skills in
science. Teachers teach scientific concepts where students understand the targeted
concepts (Williams et al., 2017). Scientific inquiry skills are the basic building blocks of
learning process skills in science.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM): A practice with
incorporating science with technology, engineering, and math into the classroom
(Weintrop et al., 2016).
108
Technology integration: The process of incorporating technology in the classroom
(McKnight, et al., 2016). Technology integration is adding technological tools into the
curriculum.
Technology knowledge: An integrated form of knowledge with content knowledge
and pedagogical knowledge that together makes TPACK (Koi et al., 2015).
Technology knowledge is how a teacher understands how to use different technological
tools.
Technological tools: Educational technology tools such as computers, probeware,
data collection and analysis software, digital microscopes, iPads, hypermedia/multimedia,
student response systems, and interactive white boards (Minshew & Anderson, 2015).
Technological tools are different types of technology that are used in the classroom.
Technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) model: The
TPACK model is used to examine and develop teachers’ knowledge of integrating
technology into teaching (Koi et al., 2015). The TPACK model is a model that measures
the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge of a teacher.
Twenty-first century classrooms: Classrooms with nontraditional teaching tools
like laptops, personal digital assistants, and digital measuring devices. (Padmavathi,
2016). The 21st-century classrooms are nontraditional classrooms that incorporate
technology.
Assumptions
This study was based on two assumptions. It was assumed that all participants
were content experts and would respond honestly to the interview. It was assumed that all
109
participants were using technology in their classroom and that their responses would be
relevant to the study. Some science teachers feel that they need to be proficient with all
technology, so predisposition may have affected how the participants responded in the
interview. Some teachers may also prefer certain technologies over others and only
shared best practices about that technology and not others.
Scope and Delimitations
The goal of this study was to identify the best practices that middle school science
teachers used with technology to teach scientific inquiry skills. The setting was two
suburban middle schools in the Southeast United States. The population of interest was
middle school science teachers. The study did not focus on students, administration,
parents, the community, ELA teachers, math teachers, social studies teachers, or related
arts teachers. The results from this study were expected to illuminate the best practices
for integrating technology into the middle school science classroom to teach science
inquiry skills. The results are applicable to any middle school within the United States
with similar demographics.
The TPACK framework was used to gather data for the study (Young, 2016). The
The SAMR framework (Gorman, 2018) was considered for this research study, but the
TPACK framework (Tanak, 2018) was found to be more appropriate. More discussion on
the framework is included in Chapter 2.
Limitations
This research study was limited to self-reported data and was dependent upon
volunteers to participate. Because the research study was conducted at one school district,
110
teachers could have consulted with each other about their responses. But such consulting
would influence their interview responses.
A possible bias for this study was my prior teaching experience as a science
teacher. But I did not let my personal experience teaching science and using technology
impact reporting the best practices as told by the sample population. To address potential
personal bias, data from the participants were carefully recorded and decoded. If they
elected, participants could review their interview transcripts. I triangulated the data
obtained by using different data collection strategies. I also maintained a reflective
journal to avoid blending my thoughts with the responses and to record accurately.
Significance
In this qualitative study, I explored the best practices that middle school science
teachers used with technological tools that can be adopted to teach scientific inquiry skills
in middle school science classrooms. This study is important to the field of educational
technology because it presents the most meaningful ways science teachers can use
leading technologies to teach scientific inquiry skills in the classroom. I identified and
codified best practices as reported by the participants. This study also yielded information
to help teachers learn more about how to use technology more meaningfully. The data
from this study could also contribute to the National Common Core Science Standards
resources with its information on how to use different technological tools to teach
scientific inquiry skills. Positive social change includes justifying the use of technology
in middle school science to teach scientific inquiry skills. The use of different
111
technological tools could prompt the school to invest in sustaining the technologies as
well as in providing more training and funding for teachers.
Summary
There are many ways for middle school science teachers to use technology in the
classroom to teach scientific inquiry skills. In this chapter, I summarized the problem
about the lack of research-based information regarding best practices in teaching
scientific inquiry skills. I also summarized the purpose for the research study to find out
about best practices in teaching scientific inquiry skills. The research literature that
related to using technology to teach scientific inquiry skills was also reviewed. I
identified the gap in the knowledge about using technology to teach scientific inquiry
skills and stated the research questions as well as described the conceptual framework.
The nature of the study was summarized and definitions pertaining to the research study
were supplied. The assumptions, scope and delimitations, limitations, and significance
about the research study were also identified and described.
Chapter 2 further explores the literature, the framework, and the importance of
how the literature related to the research study.
112
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The problem addressed in this qualitative case study was that even though
technology and technological tools are increasingly used to teach scientific inquiry skills
in middle school classrooms, teachers’ best practices for making their teaching more
meaningful are not known. Therefore, the purpose of this case study was to gather
information about the technological tools that could be adopted to make the teaching of
scientific inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms more meaningful and gainful
to students.
The literature revealed that teachers have different perceptions about the various
technological tools used to teach scientific inquiry skills in the middle school science
classroom. In a qualitative case study, Williams et al. (2017) investigated how a science
teacher used technology to teach scientific inquiry skills in the middle school classroom.
Williams et al. (2017) reported that the teacher used innovative technological techniques
to engage students with the curriculum. In another qualitative case study, McKnight et al.
(2016) measured the technology proficiency of science teachers and found that most
reported having proficient or advanced skills with using technology in the middle school
classroom. McKnight et al. concluded that science teachers have a wealth of knowledge,
skills, and technological strategies that could convert the science classroom into a
technology learning environment.
The National Science Education Standards (NSES) is a set of standards used by
science teachers to teach scientific inquiry skills and use technology (Weintrop et al.,
113
2016). The NSES standards mandate that science teachers incorporate technology into the
curriculum to teach scientific inquiry skills, but there are no known national sources that
stipulate which technological tools are progressively used to teach science inquiry in these
classrooms (Padmavathi, 2016). Gathering information from middle school science
teachers who used technological tools to teach scientific inquiry skills in middle school
science classrooms could help develop a resource of best practices that could be shared.
In this chapter, I list the sources cited in this literature review and how the sources
provide evidence for the central research questions recommended in this qualitative case
study. I describe the literature search strategies used, the conceptual framework and how
it has been used in recent studies, and literature related to key concepts of this study. I
summarize the major themes of the literature: technology in teacher preparation, middle
school and technology, scientific inquiry skills, and educational technology and provide
provisional material to connect the gap in the literature.
Literature Search Strategy
While searching the literature for this study, the Walden University’s Library
search engine, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and ERIC- Institute of Education Sciences
were used to find articles relating to teaching science in the middle school classroom with
technology. The following keywords were used: science inquiry + teaching + strategies,
TPACK, TPACK Model + science classroom, scientific inquiry skills + middle school
classroom, and efficient teaching practices + TPACK Model. A search for best science
teaching practices with technology, and teaching science inquiry with technology was
also conducted.
114
A search for scientific inquiry skills in the middle school classroom was
conducted with the following databases: Dissertations & Theses @ Walden University,
ERIC, GALE Virtual Reference Library, IBISWorld, IEEE Xplore Digital Library,
LearnTechLib-The Learning and Technology Library, National Science Foundation
NCES Publications, and ProQuest Central. While the search yielded many articles about
scientific inquiry skills, they did not focus on middle school classrooms. Another search
was warranted with the words science and inquiry to find better results and narrow the
list. The new search provided more success using the Boolean term and yielded a more
streamlined list of articles.
In Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and ERIC, a search was conducted for TPACK
and TPACK model in the science classroom. The date range was customized for articles
within the last 5 years. The search yielded over 10 pages of articles, websites, books, and
mentions about the TPACK Model. On each page was 20 listings. The search was
repeated following the same search criteria with the additional use of a Boolean term.
The returned list was smaller and yielded more articles that related to this research study.
There were many articles with PDF files and the PDF file articles were more accessible.
Some articles required that the author be contacted for permission to use the article in the
research study. All of the authors that were contacted responded positively and gave
permission to use their research.
Conceptual Framework
The TPACK Model is a framework which identified the knowledge that was
needed to successfully teach technology in the classroom (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The
115
TPACK Model is used to identify best practices adopted by middle school science
teachers to teach scientific inquiry skills. The model was introduced by Mishra and
Koehler of Michigan State University in 2006. Mishra and Koehler (2006) identified
three different types of knowledge: Content Knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge
(PK), and technological knowledge (TK) to implement technology in the classroom
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Mishra and Koehler’s research into developing the TPACK theory was based on
the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model (Portnoy,
2018) which had four distinct categories: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and
Redefinition to incorporate technology into the classroom (Kihoza et al., 2016). The
SAMR model was used mainly to evaluate technology usage in the classroom and not as
a teaching device (Kihoza et al., 2016). Portnoy (2018), wrote that the SAMR model
redefined the way that technology impacted the classroom and the nature of instruction,
therefore the SAMR model was a great platform for the TPACK theory to be based upon.
While the SAMR model was used more to evaluate, the TPACK model relied on the
connections between technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and content
knowledge and was used to support teachers in their pursuit of integrating technology
into their lessons (Kihoza et al., 2016).
The TPACK model was used in Guzey and Roehrig’s (2009) qualitative research
study which explored how teachers used the TPACK model to teach with different
technology in the classroom. The TPACK model analysis revealed that some teachers
considered themselves proficient, blending pedagogy with technology, while other
116
teachers struggled with incorporating them (Guzey & Roehrig, 2009). In 2010, Allan,
Erickson, Brookhouse, and Johnson applied the TPACK model to their qualitative
research study where they launched The Maine Laptop Program. Middle school students
across the state were given laptops and teachers were given professional development
training to integrate technology into their curriculum. The TPACK model analysis
revealed that over a period of three years, there was a significant increase in technology
skills; an increase in content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills; and positive
transformations with pedagogy for teachers (Allan et al., 2010).
Jang and Tsai (2013) used the TPACK model in their quantitative research study
to investigate how secondary science teachers were influenced by gender and teaching
experience. Jang and Tsai surveyed 1293 teachers and after analyzing their responses
found that female teachers had more content and pedagogical knowledge and that male
teachers had a higher technological knowledge (Jang & Tsai, 2013). More male teachers
were using technology to teach science. After further analysis, they also found that
content knowledge and pedagogy knowledge was more established with experienced
science teachers, therefore teaching experience influenced how technology was used in
the classroom (Jang & Tsai, 2013).
Rosenberg and Koehler (2015) defined TPACK as the description of information
used to clarify certain content with technology while Bang and Luft (2013) defined the
TPACK framework as a system used to identify technological knowledge, content
knowledge, and pedagogy knowledge of teachers. In Bang and Luft’s (2013) qualitative
research study, they used the TPACK framework to identify strategies that teachers used
117
to incorporate technology into their classroom to teach science inquiry skills. Bang and
Luft, 2013 stated that in order for the TPACK framework to be successfully implemented,
teachers must create ICT 21st century learning communities within their school and
establish workable relationships with each other to build a foundation of trust to work
together to teach scientific inquiry skills with technology. The TPACK framework can be
used to teach The Next Generation Science Standards placing emphasis on authentic
scientific investigation in the classroom. (Weintrop et al., 2016).
There were several research studies which provided evidence for how ICT 21st
century learning communities and TPACK had impacted education (Baran, Bilici, Sari, &
Tondeur, 2017; Bilici et al., 2016; Finger et al., 2015; Koi et al., 2015). The research
studies spanned a variety of years and education platforms and yielded data and results
that supported the use of the TPACK framework in teaching. Koi et al.’s (2015)
metaanalysis qualitative research study reviewed seven published theoretical research
papers about how teachers used the TPACK framework for instructional planning and
elearning. The research study concentrated on how TPACK could support pedagogical
efforts to teach students and support 21st century competencies. Data analysis revealed
positive results with technology incorporation in the classroom. Padmavathi’s (2016)
meta-analysis research study presented findings from several previous research studies
involving the TPACK framework as a tool that taught teachers how to incorporate
technology into their lessons. The importance of educational technology in the classroom
was identified and the TPACK framework was used to successfully help prepare teachers
on how to apply different technology tools in their classroom (Padmavathi, 2016).
118
PK was necessary for establishing a foundation for teaching (Baran et al., 2017;
Finger et al., 2015; Martin, 2015; Tokmak, 2015). PK consisted of information about how
to teach and the history of education and teachers needed to know strategies and develop
skills about how to teach students. CK was knowledge about the content or subject and
teachers were expected to be experts in their respective field of study (Finger et al., 2015;
Martin, 2015; Tanak, 2018; Tokmak, 2015). TK was knowing how to incorporate
technology in the classroom. Technology integration in the 21st-century classroom was
on-going, and teachers were expected to use technology to teach (Bilici et al., 2016).
The research questions of this qualitative research study focus on how teachers
used technology in their classrooms, how they apply pedagogy to teach students, and how
content is taught with the aid of technology, therefore the TPACK framework was
appropriate. The TPACK framework is important to this qualitative research study
because I will be able to describe the pedagogy, content, and technology knowledge of
teachers as they discuss the best practices, they adopt to integrate technology into their
classroom.
Literature Review Related to Key Concepts
A review of the literature related to technology use in the science classroom
revealed four themes. In this section I discuss literature for the following:
• Technology in teacher preparation (Bilici et al., 2016; Finger et al., 2015;
Pöntinen, Dillon, & Väisänen, 2017)
• Middle school and technology (Bippert, 2019; Hilton, 2016; Minshew &
Anderson, 2015)
119
• Scientific inquiry skills (Castle & Ferreira, 2015; Fraser, 2017; Williams et al.,
2017) and
• Educational technology (Chun, Kern, & Smith, 2016; Garba,Yusuf, &
Busthami, 2015; McKnight et al., 2016).
Technology in Teacher Preparation
Teacher preparation programs added technology as a part of their curriculum to
help prepare preservice teachers for the classroom. Technology classes were added to
many teacher education programs at colleges and universities as a requirement for
graduation (Baran et al., 2017). The explosion of technology within the last decade
helped to guide the pedagogical, content, and technology knowledge of teacher education
programs (Baran et al., 2017; Tanak, 2018; Tokmak, 2015).
In a meta-analysis study about technology, Martin (2015) examined how teacher
education programs prepared preservice teachers to teach with innovative technologies.
Martin (2015) reported that the assimilation of technology into daily life would spread
into education and impact schools and education preparation programs and that there was
a need to reform teaching and learning. The International Society for Technology in
Education created a set of standards to normalize how educators integrated and taught
technology in the classroom (Martin, 2015). The new standards emphasized the teacher as
the architect of knowledge construction while helping the student to build upon their
technology knowledge. Martin (2015) introduced content, pedagogy, and technology
knowledge as the overall assessment that researchers used to assess tactics for successful
technology integration. Martin (2015) reviewed how content, pedagogy, and technology
knowledge was used to build technology confidence and provide learning opportunities
120
for teachers through technology modeling. For preservice teachers, the benefits of
observing technology-rich environments would increase their knowledge in all areas of
the technology standards (Martin, 2015). Martin’s (2015) research compared the different
instructional practices for preservice teacher training. The National Educational
Technology Standards for Teachers was created to provide support and communicate
goals for teacher education curriculum and articulate the objectives for successful
technology implementation (Martin, 2015). In 2006, all teacher training programs in the
United States provided instruction on technology integration (Martin, 2015). Technology
was placed in content-specific coursework to expand the confidence of preservice
teachers while preparing them to use the technology as an in-service teacher. Martin
(2015) suggested that content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge was the catalyst for
designing the coursework. Technology knowledge was more prominent in education
programs, and professional development activities (Martin, 2015). School faculty also
collaborated with in-service school teachers to develop technology-infused curriculum
that helped preservice teachers with content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge
(Martin, 2015).
In two other research studies about using technology in the classroom, Finger et
al. (2015) reviewed the development of teacher education programs in Australia to use
technologies to assist with teaching and Tokmak (2015) investigated technology use in
teacher preparation of early childhood education preservice teachers in Turkey. In Finger
et al.’s (2015) quantitative research study the government funded a five months long
project called Teaching Teachers for the Future Project at institutions of higher education
121
throughout the country (Finger et al., 2015). The research study was conducted at 48
different institutions across the country with 37 of them being public institutions. Finger
et al. (2015) reported that the Australian government believed that the quality of teacher
education needed to be upgraded to increase productivity in the country and the
importance of developing a program with content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge
was critical to the success of the country. The purpose was to use content, pedagogy, and
technology knowledge to prepare preservice teachers for the classroom. Participants
received a pre- and post-survey online via their school email. Finger et al.’s (2015)
findings revealed that more participants showed teacher confidence with using
technology skills. Students had an improved confidence in using ICT, but there was room
for improvement (Finger et al., 2015). In Tokmak’s (2015) qualitative research study
teachers were asked to design an educational computer game with PowerPoint. The
preservice teachers selected were in the same Early Childhood Education course and had
knowledge of educational computer games. There was a total of 21 participants with two
being male (Tokmak, 2015). Tokmak (2015) used three instruments to collect data
interviews: a demographic questionnaire, interviews, and journals. Tokmak (2015)
revealed that that most of the participants were content with their game they designed
because their games were designed with the classroom environment in mind. The
preservice teachers used content, pedagogy, and technology together to create a game
where students were able to learn, thereby presenting success for the technology
assimilation in their teacher preparation program (Tokmak, 2015).
122
Bilici et al.’s (2016) qualitative research study assessed the content, pedagogy, and
technology knowledge of preservice teachers over a semester long course. Bilici et al.
(2016) discussed the importance of integrating technology into teaching. The twentyfirst
century classroom had become laden with technology and teachers were expected to use
technology to teach (Bilici et al., 2016). Bilici et al. (2016) sought to show how content,
pedagogy, and technology knowledge were unique and would benefit teacher preparation
programs. The research study had a sample group of 27 preservice science teachers from
a university in Turkey who offered to join in the case study (Bilici et al., 2016). Data were
collected through lesson plans and observations over a period of thirteen weeks. There
was a significant increase in the use of technology in the classroom, but no opportunities
for support (Bilici et al., 2016). Bilici et al. (2016) concluded that it was critical to
identify and measure a teacher’s use of technology in the
classroom to foster efficient integration of technology into their future teaching.
Like Bilici et al.’s (2016) qualitative research study, Tanak’s (2018)
mixedmethods research study also addressed the integration of technology into classroom
using content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge for preservice teachers. The ability
of teachers to incorporate technology into the classroom was an essential part of teacher
education (Tanak, 2018). Tanak (2018) evaluated how a course in a teacher preparation
program develop the content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge of preservice science
teachers. The sample population was 15 preservice teachers, 3 males, and 12 females
enrolled in a 2-year Master of teaching program at a public university (Tanak, 2018). The
students completed a content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge questionnaire and
123
submitted science lesson plans using technology for analysis. Tanak (2018) discovered
that the teachers used technology mostly as a teaching tool to support instruction. They
used content knowledge more, and used pedagogy knowledge less (Tanak, 2018). Tanak
(2018) concluded that the focus of teacher preparation programs should be on
understanding how to blend technology, content, and pedagogy knowledge together.
Baran et al.’s (2017) quantitative research study and Pöntinen et al.’s, (2017)
research study both examined preservice teachers’ and technology integration in the
classroom. Teacher preparation programs had added the practice of preparing preservice
teachers how to teach technology. Baran et al. (2017) sampled 215 preservice teachers
from three universities in Turkey over one semester. The preservice teachers were given
the synthesis of qualitative evidence (SQD) scale, which was developed by Tondeur, Van
Braak, Ertmer, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich in 2016. The scale rated the teachers on the
efficiency of the strategies they learned while preparing to integrate technology in their
future classrooms (Baran et al., 2017). Baran et al. reported that the most commonly used
strategies for technology integration were reflection and modeling. There were limited
opportunities to offer feedback and evaluation for preservice teachers. Baran et al.
concluded that teacher education programs that implemented technology integration
practices would benefit preservice teachers as long as there were ways to offer feedback
for improvement. Pöntinen et al.’s (2017) studied technology education programs for
preservice teachers and revealed that teacher preparation programs taught pedagogical
knowledge about technology education in the classroom but failed to offer practice and
support for students enrolled in the program. Students were not given the opportunity to
124
turn their analytical knowledge into practical knowledge, thus they struggled with
incorporating technology later in their professional careers (Pöntinen et al., 2017).
Pöntinen et al. (2017) reported once the preservice teacher was in a classroom, support
for technology was not guaranteed. Teacher preparation programs revealed that when
support was offered for technology, preservice teachers were expected to use technology
in the classroom (Pöntinen et al., 2017).
Another research study that focused on technology in the classroom was Foulgeri,
Graziano, Schmidt-Crawford, and Slykhuis’s (2017) mixed-methods research study that
investigated how Teacher Education Technology Competencies (TETC) supported
teacher candidates as they prepared to become teachers who use technology frequently.
Foulgeri et al. (2017) reported that collaborative research approaches were used to assist
with developing the TETCs. The research approaches were the efforts of
technologyrelated information, a Delphi method for professional feedback, and an open
call for public remark (Foulgeri et al., 2017). Foulgeri et al. (2017) reported that most
teacher preparation programs were semester long and used a separate technology
integration course to learn how to teach with technology. TETCs placed teacher
candidates with experienced teachers in classrooms along with the technology integration
course. Foulgeri et al. (2017) reported that crowdsourcing, where many individuals could
participate, addressed the aptitudes needed by teacher to support the development of
preservice teachers as they acquire knowledge to teach with technology. The Delphi
method validated and refined ideas about TETCs through survey-driven data collection.
125
Public comments yielded positive, enthusiastic attitudes towards the TETCs (Foulgeri et
al., 2017). Foulgeri et al. (2017) concluded that TETCs were positive and all teacher
candidates should have equitable, high-quality technology experiences throughout their
teacher preparation programs based upon a set of competencies that were used to help
guide teacher educators in understanding what was needed to integrate technology.
Middle School and Technology
Technology integration in middle school classrooms encompassed a variety of
tools. Minshew and Anderson’s (2015) qualitative research study discussed the use of
how to use technology with one-to-one iPad use in the science and math classroom.
Minshew and Anderson focused on two sample groups, students at the middle school
level and middle school teachers in the classroom. They selected a Title I middle school
in the southeastern part of the United States and used pseudonyms for the school and
participants (Minshew & Anderson, 2015). The student group was diverse with a total of
647 participants (Minshew & Anderson, 2015). Minshew and Anderson only sampled the
6th grade teachers because their ratio of students to teachers was 100 to 4. Out of the 6th
grade teachers, all choose to participate and two were selected for a case study (Minshew
& Anderson, 2015). Data were collected via interviews, observations, circle of influence
diagram, field notes, lesson plans, and video data (Minshew & Anderson, 2015). The data
were coded, and the researchers saw that teachers felt good about the use of one-to-one
technologies (Minshew & Anderson, 2015). The benefits of one-to-one technologies were
creativity with student learning, application of critical thinking skills, collaboration, and
digital literacy (Minshew & Anderson, 2015). Minshew and Anderson’s research also
revealed how iPad use gave teachers the ability to include technology-rich lessons that
126
advanced student learning and engaged students in the learning process. The data also
identified some barriers, teacher bias within their own struggle with technology,
connectivity, and professional development. Teachers who used one-to-one technologies
were more creative with student learning to apply critical thinking skills, collaboration,
and digital literacy (Minshew & Anderson, 2015). iPad use in the classroom advanced
student learning and engaged students in the learning process (Minshew & Anderson,
2015). Integrating technology in middle school classrooms was superb, but a framework
was needed to assess how efficient it was for middle school teachers.
Like Minshew and Anderson (2015), Hilton’s (2016) qualitative case study also
used technology integration into the classroom and two separate models were used as two
ways integration could happen in the classroom. Hilton examined the use of each model
in the classroom. Hilton’s research study was conducted in an urban school district in
southwestern Pennsylvania. The case study followed two 8th grade middle school social
studies teachers use of 30 iPads to teach content to their students (Hilton, 2016). The
teachers had two separate technology models to use. Each teacher used one model for
half of the school year and then the other model for the other half (Hilton, 2016). The
findings suggested that the first model did not function in a hierarchical manner (Hilton,
2016). There was no scaffolding because each area was considered a different task,
therefore when one model was completed, the teacher moved to the other. The second
model gave the teachers a way to scaffold and build within the lessons (Hilton, 2016).
127
Hilton (2016) reported that the teachers agreed that the models were both useful, but the
second model appeared more easily aligned with teacher-centered instructional design
philosophies and focused on the teacher (Hilton, 2016).
Young (2016) conducted a meta-analysis of a technology framework in
mathematics education to show how technology-enhanced lessons can be efficient in the
mathematics classrooms. Young reported the framework was used because it provided
practical, empirical and theoretical considerations for the integration of technology in the
math classroom. Young chose a meta-analysis to identify specific variables that can
account for variation on the efficiency of technology integration in the mathematics
classroom. Young found that the technologies that were integrated in the mathematics
classroom focused on the functionality of the tool and how the tool could be used to
improve and enhance mathematics. The framework was provided as a valid and reliable
framework to guide the investigation and the study supported the use of the framework as
an analytical tool characterized by pedagogical and content knowledge in the
mathematics classroom (Young, 2016).
Romine, Sadler, and Wulff (2017) used a mixed methods study to explore middle
school gender differences related to science and technology. Romine et al. developed the
Measure of Affect in Science and Technology to measure middle school students’
perspective about science and technology. Romine et al.’s methodology focused on the
how the students felt about science and technology. Romine et al. monitored the student’s
perspectives but found that they did not understand fully. Therefore, they developed and
implemented a study instrument to fill this gap (Romine et al., 2017). This instrument, the
128
Measure of Affect in Science and Technology (MAST), assessed how students were
interested in science and technology (Romine et al., 2017). A classical test theory and
Rasch analysis was used to produce dependable and acceptable explanations regarding
middle school students’ affect and propose recommendations for its use (Romine et al.,
2017). Romine et al. sampled 79 6th graders at a middle school in a small Midwestern city
with 45 were male and 28 were female students. Romine et al. reported that after the
preliminary evaluation of construct validity using classical test methods, they added three
items to the assessment, and administered the updated survey to a total of 138 students.
There were 92 6th graders and 46 7th graders. The student population equated to 79
female, and 59 male students (Romine et al., 2017). Romine et al. found that there was a
high interest in science careers because science and technology carried the highest
affective score. Romine et al. (2017) reported that males exhibited greater aptitudes of
personal interest in science, science careers, and the biggest interest in technology.
Romine et al. concluded that middle school students learned more in science with
technology use.
Tyler-Wood, Cockerham, and Johnson’s (2018) quantitative research study
examined how teachers and students used technology in a rural middle school and
Bippert’s (2019) qualitative case study analyzed the interactions of students and staff
members as they used technology at school. Even though the sample populations were
different, both research studies analyzed the integration of technology in the middle
school classroom. Tyler-Wood et al. (2018) reported that according to the Next
Generation Science Standards all students needed to attain a vigorous K-12 science
129
education to be prosperous globally and that this goal can be achieved when teachers and
students were required to use technology. Tyler-Wood et al. believed that
technologyintegrated instruction could convert contemporary classrooms to promote
scholar enthusiasm, longer attention spans, and academic success by sharing new
methods of learning with the scholar. Tyler-Wood et al. noted that this transformation
begun with training teachers to use technology in the classroom and with teaching them
how to best apply the technology to help students. Tyler-Wood et al. sampled 24 teachers
and a group of seventh grade students in two rural Texas school districts. The schools
were selected based on demographics where 70% of students were White, 23% were
Hispanic, and 3% were Black (Tyler-Wood et al., 2018). The remaining percentage of
students were Native American, Asian, or biracial (Tyler-Wood et al., 2018). Tyler-Wood
et al. (2018) stated that teachers and students received online pre- and post-intervention
surveys. The students received The International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational
Achievement’s assessment known as TIMSS and the teachers received the Concernsbased
Adoption Model-Levels of Use (Tyler-Wood et al., 2018). The pre- and postsurveys were
assessed, and the data were analyzed using one-way Analysis of Variance (Tyler-Wood et
al., 2018). Tyler-Wood et al. concluded that using technology did not preclude a teacher’s
or student’s successful with technologies. Success was accomplished with substantial
planning, student training, and teacher training in order to incorporate technology in the
middle school classroom.
130
Bippert (2019) sought to capture the cultural perceptions related to technological
tools using a computer-aided reading intervention program. Bippert reported a trend with
technology-based comprehension intervention programs at middle schools in the United
States and these programs were promoted as interesting and great for students, but there
was a lack of consistent evidence to support that claim. Bippert sampled two teachers,
four students, and two administrators all at the same urban middle school. Bippert
analyzed the perceptions of each group as they used the reading intervention program.
Data were collected through observational field notes, screen and audio recordings,
interviews, and informal conversations. Bippert’s findings showed that the participants’
opinions of the reading tactics and technology tools differed across participant groups.
The perceptions about technology differed among teachers, students, and administrators
in regard to the reading intervention program (Bippert, 2019). Students felt the program
did not differentiate enough for their unique reading difficulty. Teachers felt the program
was a great resource, but additional support was needed. Administrators felt the program
was worth the funding because it was marketed as a top technological tool to help
struggling readers (Bippert, 2019). Bippert concluded that schools should focus on their
individual and technology resources to know what was meaningful to foster achievement
and include a choice of comprehension strategies to support active commitment,
opportunities for social activities and technology integration.
Scientific Inquiry Skills
Scientific inquiry skills were taught as a separate science concept in middle school
classrooms worldwide (Williams et al., 2017). A comparison of the same class over a
131
two-year time revealed how one science teacher used a variety of technology to teach
scientific inquiry skills. Williams et al. (2017) collected the teacher’s technology
integration data to teach science inquiry skills in the classroom. The teacher was a
nineyear veteran teacher that taught middle school science at a New Zealand high school.
The data collected revealed that the teacher scaffolded the lessons with technology for
over two years with the same group of students (Williams et al., 2017). Science inquiry
skills were taught as a scaffolding concept to increase student engagement and interest in
science (Williams et al., 2017). Students explored authentic science problems and
realworld applications with the addition of technology in science. Each year the students’
knowledge and understanding of science inquiry skills increased with the use of
technology (Williams et al., 2017). There was value in using different technologies in the
classroom because some students gravitated more towards one or more technological
tools and gained an advantage to understand and process the scientific inquiry skills
objective (Williams et al., 2017). Science inquiry as a separate concept was efficient.
The concept of scientific inquiry skills has also been integrated with the TPACK
framework to teach the concept (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). The Professional Learning
Design Model (TPLDM) along with the components of the TPACK framework, were
used to teach technology-enhanced lessons in the science classroom (Jaipal-Jamani &
Figg, 2015). Jaipal-Jamani & Figg’s (2015) case study approach studied how blogging
could be used to understand science inquiry. This research study was conducted at an
inner-city school over 4 weeks with three female eighth grade middle school science
teachers who had limited experience using blogs for classroom instruction (Jaipal-Jamani
132
& Figg, 2015). The teachers attended a technology professional development workshop
to learn how to implement technology-enhanced lessons to teach eighth grade science
objectives (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). Jaipal-Jamani & Figg (2015) concluded that
PCK increased to decipher teaching strategies and content for efficient science teaching.
TK increased for efficient instruction with technological tools in the science classroom
(Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). Attendance at professional development workshops
increased CK and TK (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). Blogging in science education
helped endorse 21st Century learning skills and increased the TPACK of students and
teachers (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). Furthermore, Jaipal-Jamani & Figg stated
professional development added value to the science curriculum for teachers, and the
technology workshops helped teachers execute lessons successfully (p. 26).
In the United States, science inquiry skills combined within a framework was the
key to a good science program (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). In China, a good science
program was the technology knowledge was used to help improve science education and
add technology into the classroom (Liu et al., 2017). In Thailand, the art of good teaching
and learning practice was developed through scientific experimental skills using
inquirybased learning with digital technology (Thanapud, Kamyod, Chaisricharoen, &
Yooyatiwong, 2018).
The teaching structure in China was categorized into teacher-centered and
teacher-led instruction (Liu et al., 2017). Liu et al.’s qualitative research study used video
observation to analyze the use of technology in six classrooms in the Jilin Provence D of
China (p. 15). The video was encoded, and information was entered into tables to analyze
133
the data (Liu et al., 2017). The TPACK structure of teachers’ relationships, and teaching
styles enhanced the fluency of classroom teaching and technology used to teach science
(Liu et al., 2017). The TPACK structure helped improve science education in China and
integrated technology into the classroom (Liu et al., 2017).
In Thailand, digital technology was used to create a learning management system
to promote inquiry-based learning (Thanapud et al., 2018). Thanapud et al.’s (2018)
research study was conducted in Chiang Rai, Thailand, with eighth grade science learners
to observe behavior while using digital technology in the science classroom. Student
learners enjoyed using digital technology to complete scientific experiments (Thanapud et
al., 2018) and teacher confidence with using digital technology increased due to daily
classroom use (Thanapud et al., 2018).
Castle and Ferreira (2015) reported that in the United States, The National
Research Council released a document which reviewed the need to ask scientific
questions, develop models and simulation, and prepare and carry out investigations, The
Next Generation Science Standards (p. 14). The requirement for teaching science needed
to be more than just content and assessments (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). A qualitative
research study at a middle school in southeastern Michigan selected 12 science teachers
to participate in a 5-Point Likert survey that questioned the teachers’ overall knowledge
about teaching middle school science (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). In addition to the survey,
a focus group session and observations occurred (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). In the focus
group, the teachers were interviewed about their obligations to teach and apply the Next
Generation Science Standards (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). All teachers enjoyed using a
134
guided inquiry approach to teaching because the students investigated and asked
questions (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). A structured inquiry was also preferred for teaching
scientific inquiry skills because the teacher asked questions, and the students supplied the
correct answer (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). An open-ended inquiry was least favored
because the answer to the question was inconclusive (Castle & Ferreira, 2015). This study
indicated that teachers have a decent understanding of scientific inquiry skills concepts
but realized that a framework was needed to teach additional skillsets like scientific
reasoning and theory development (Castle & Ferreira, 2015).
Specific components of the TPACK framework were used to problem solve with
science teachers (Fraser, 2017). Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) was introduced
to science teachers to discover how optimal learning could take place in a mostly
traditional distance learning environment (Fraser, 2017). The distance education learning
environment was paper saturated and deprived science teachers of hands-on
scienceoriented practice (Fraser, 2017). Fraser stated interviews conducted with the four
science professionals lasted for 45 minutes concerning their capabilities with instructional
design application and implementation in distance education. The four science
professionals stated that the design application was not optimal for learning scientific
inquiry skills (Fraser, 2017). The paper-based tutorials were best for sharing practices but
failed to engage the learners in communities of hands-on scientific inquiry skills (Fraser,
2017). The focus of the Distance Education program was not centered on the
development of strategies for scientific inquiry skills practice (Fraser, 2017).
Scientific inquiry skills practice happened at a young age. Aydemir, Ugras,
135
Cambay, and Kilic’s (2017) quantitative research study examined the how preschool
teachers view science and scientific inquiry skills. Early science and scientific inquiry
skills exposure led to the development of positive attitudes with science. (Aydemir et al.,
2017). Scientific inquiry skills were expressed as understanding the natural world and
understanding evidence that support natural phenomena (Aydemir et al., 2017). Scientific
inquiry skills were also conveyed as the accomplishments of learners scientific as they
understand the natural world (Aydemir et al., 2017). In this research study at Firat
University, Turkey, preservice preschool science teachers were given a questionnaire to
collect their perception about scientific inquiry skills (Aydemir et al., 2017). The overall
opinionated data concluded that the nature of science and scientific inquiry skills should
be taught at a young age (Aydemir et al., 2017). The preservice preschool teachers
recommended that education courses use appropriate pedagogical approaches to teach the
core fundamentals of the nature of science and scientific inquiry skills in undergraduate
education to preservice teachers (Aydemir et al., 2017). Ayedemir et al. concluded that the
teachers believed teaching scientific inquiry skills at a young age helped prepare young
learners to understand science and scientific inquiry skills better as they progressed.
Educational Technology
Educational technology was a concept enhanced technology integration in the
classroom (McKnight et al., 2016). McKnight et al.’s (2016) mixed methods research
study sampled 44 teachers to discover how technology-enhanced student learning.
Teachers completed a voluntary online survey about their technology use, and 40 out of
the 44 teachers responded (McKnight et al., 2016). The findings conveyed most teachers
136
reported proficiency or advanced skills with technology use. Few teachers described
issues with incorporating technology in the classroom; instead, there was a high level of
commitment to using technology in the classroom to enhance learning (McKnight et al.,
2016). Yet, there were a few barriers that hindered successful implementation: lack of
administrative support, insufficient training, and lack of support to sustain technology
usage in the classroom. Despite the barriers, educational technology was efficaciously
integrated in the classroom (McKnight et al., 2016).
McKnight et al. (2016) reported that teachers were advanced with technology
integration. Pilgrim and Martinez’s (2015) qualitative research study examined how
teachers integrated technology and web literacy skills to develop literacy skills (Pilgrim
& Martinez, 2015). Pilgrim and Martinez (2015) wrote The United States Department of
Education released the National Technology Plan in 2010 and the purpose of the plan was
to introduce 21st century literacy skills into the classroom because literacy was no longer
traditional with books, paper, and pencils. The impact of technology perception affected
teacher’s web literacy skills, technology integration, and TPACK. Teachers
communicated a lack of confidence with incorporating web literacy skills and suggested
that web literacy skills be taught in the classroom regardless of the content (Pilgrim &
Martinez, 2015). Teachers indicated the lack of an evaluation method to distinguish
between credible and noncredible sources on the web hindered how to distinguish
between the two types of sources (Pilgrim & Martinez, 2015).
Technology integration was used to examine the use of TPACK to teach STEM in
middle school classrooms (Rahman, Krishnan, & Kapila, 2017) Robotics technology was
137
the concept for teaching STEM education. A group of twenty teachers from an urban
inner-city middle school with a familiarity using robots and a robotics-based instructional
framework in their classroom were invited to participate. (Rahman et al., 2017).
Observations and a questionnaire were completed illuminating how the teachers used
robotics-based technology and the TPACK model was applied to the robotics-based
instructional framework. First, Technological Knowledge was required to teach
roboticsbased technology. The teacher handled issues that arose and modeled the use of
the robotic equipment (Rahman et al., 2017). Second, Pedagogical Knowledge was
required by teachers to differentiate, scaffold, and group students. Last, Content
Knowledge was needed because teachers had to know their grade level specific
curriculum to teach the correct information (Rahman et al., 2017). The TPACK model
was essential to the success of the program.
In another STEM program in the United States, teaching portfolios were
introduced through the Engineering for All program, a 5 year-long STEM program that
was supposed to develop middle school technology and highlight the duties of engineers
in solving global and community-based design (Lomask, Crismond, & Hacker, 2018).
Twenty-two teachers were tasked to teach the engineering units over time to middle
school students. Lomask et al. collected data with a 5-point Likert scale and the
submission of teaching portfolio logs yielded results that most teachers had encouraging
views about the new technology curriculum (Lomask et al., 2018). The use of technology
was beneficial in teaching the engineering theme and classroom instruction, but the
content of the unit was too hard to accurately understand (Lomask et al., 2018).
138
In more science programs, Khlaif, Gok, and Kouraïchi (2019) examined how
instructional practices in technology education in Palestine was used to identify the
importance of procedures to teach educational technology and Chun et al., (2016)
examined how instructional practices in a meta-analysis research study focused on the
teaching language with technology in the classroom. Middle school teachers examined
the procedures and processes used to design technology-enhanced activities for a one-
toone mobile technology environment in a middle school environment (Khlaif et al.,
2019). Khlaif et al. used a multiple-case study design with 27 teachers who volunteered
for the research study from different middle schools in the technology restricted country.
The volunteer teachers attempted to use collaborative procedures to plan technology-rich
lessons. Data were collected through observations, organized interviews, and focus
groups every month for 8 months with interviews scheduled at the convenience of the
participants and completed within 30 minutes (Khlaif et al., 2019). The results presented
that the violence in the region affected how the design teams worked together (Khlaif et
al., 2019). Furthermore, the social and religious factors delayed the discussion of the
group due to disagreeing policies from the Ministry of Education (Khlaif et al., 2019).
Time, culture, and security barriers were the main challenges for the design teams as they
attempted to meet and design their activities (Khlaif et al., 2019). Despite their best
efforts, instructional practice procedures were difficult to maintain as intrusive sources
delayed or deterred progress.
Technology changed and had evolved but the concept of language acquisition did
not change and was a needed concept in education (Chun et al., 2016). The dilemma for
139
some teachers was how to incorporate technology into teaching practices to best teach
language (Chun et al., 2016). Speech could be taught using digital technologies. Digital
devices were physical devices that could be manipulated to produce sound and video
(Chun et al., 2016). Virtual environments were available for users to practice language
use and re-create themselves to interact with others (Chun et al., 2016). Purposeful use of
technology engaged the learner and teacher to indicate meaningful learning, critical
reflection, and focus on what was important, and using the right technology could
influence how well language was acquired and retained (Chun et al., 2016).
Technological tools increased success with instructional practices.
Educational technology was used to shape the foundation of 21st century
classrooms (Garba et al., 2015) and was also influenced by pedagogy (Tondeur et al.,
(2016). The use of 21st century technology-based teaching methods for instructors in
Malaysia and the Asia Pacific showed how infrastructure and internet connectivity
provided students and instructors with the chance of embracing 21st century
teachinglearning methods that certified the development of 21st century technology skills
like sending an email, uploading a document, and connecting to the internet (Garba et al.,
2015). The availability of internet connectivity was a key component for a transfer from
content-based learning to interactive project-based learning. Eight teachers from two
nonurban schools in the state of Kedah in Malaysia were selected for the research study.
Garba et al. collected and analyzed data and revealed a distinctive organization in the use
of computer and internet among teachers. Even with the advances of internet and 21st
century technologies, the method to teaching and learning did not alter (Garba et al.,
2015). Teachers in Malaysia had simple training on the use of computers and using the
140
internet by attending conferences and taking courses. However, Garba et al. reported
teaching and learning had centered around the use of current and evolving technologies.
Teachers were not comfortable using emerging technologies (Garba et al., 2015).
Teachers and technology were the critical factors in a 21st century classroom. When
teachers adopted the use of 21st century learning approaches and teaching methods,
classroom practices should have changed but did not. Several approaches were needed,
training, support, and an additional framework like the TPACK theory needed to be
incorporated into teacher education for more success (Garba et al., 2015). Educational
technology in the 21st century classroom had amplified and could be sustained with
support, training, and TPACK (Garba et al., 2015).
Tondeur et al.’s (2016) meta-aggregative research study focused on the connection
between the pedagogical beliefs and educational use of technology. Technology had
steadily increased, and teachers have incorporated a variety of technologies in the
classroom. Personal pedagogy influenced a teacher’s belief about technology integration
within the classroom (Tondeur et al., 2016). Teachers selected technologies that aligned
with their subject and thoughts about good education. Over time, a teacher’s pedagogical
belief influenced their experience with technology, which could change their classroom
practices with technology (Tondeur et al., 2016). The integration of technology could not
be a single event but rather a demonstration of learning that supported technology
education in the classroom.
The literature that I reviewed supports my choice of methodology and relates to
the research question. The case study methodology and the TPACK framework are
141
appropriate for this qualitative research study. They are appropriate because I explained
how individual teachers use technology usage in the classroom. The TPACK model
provided three components: TK, CK, and PK that were essential for a teacher’s ability to
assimilate technology into the classroom (Baran et al., 2017) and I used the components
to examine this integration. This qualitative research study will share best practices that
science teachers use to teach scientific inquiry skills in middle school classrooms. This
research study will answer questions about the importance of successfully integrating
technology into the 21st century classroom and using technological tools to teach science
content.
Summary and Conclusion
In this chapter, I summarized the major themes for the literature and discussed
how middle school science classrooms had been equipped with different technological
tools for science teachers to use to teach scientific inquiry skills (Williams et al., 2017). I
described the TPACK framework and how it had been used to assist with the integration
of technology in the science classroom in several research studies (McKnight et al., 2016;
Rahman et al., 2017) and various factors affected the PK, CK, and TK of science
teachers, which affected how they use technology (Jaipal-Jamani & Figg, 2015). I noted
that scientific inquiry skills were being taught in science classrooms worldwide with a
variety of technological methods (Williams et al., 2017) and that educational technology
was important to 21st century classrooms (Garba et al., 2015).
Middle school science teachers were using technology in the classroom to teach
scientific inquiry skills, but their best practices for teaching scientific inquiry skills with
142
technology was not known. Gathering information from middle school science teachers
who use technological tools to teach scientific inquiry skills in middle school science
classrooms to be more meaningful and gainful for students was necessary. The present
research study examined factors that involved the best practices used to teach scientific
inquiry skills with technology, how the TPACK framework related to teaching with
technology, and incorporating educational technology in the classroom.
In this chapter I restated the problem and purpose, provided a concise synopsis of
the literature and cited sources that supported and provided evidence for the central
research questions recommended in this qualitative case study. The framework was
identified while I synthesized the primary writing of the key theorists and researchers.
The concept was applied the benefit for the research was established. The related
literature was described, justified, and synthesized providing evidence for the research
study.
In Chapter 3, the research design, rationale, methodology, and ethics for this
qualitative research study are examined.
Chapter 3: Research Method
The problem addressed in this qualitative case study was that even though
technology and technological tools are increasingly used to teach scientific inquiry skills
in middle school classrooms, best practices for making their teaching more meaningful
are not known. Therefore, the purpose of this research case study was to gather
information about the technological tools that could be adopted to make the teaching of
143
scientific inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms more meaningful and gainful
to students.
In this chapter, I introduce the research design and rationale. The role of the
researcher is defined, along with how I did not impact the research study with
professional relationships and biases. The methodology is described to identify the
population, sampling strategy, participant criterion, number of participants, procedures
for recruitment, and relationship between sample size and saturation. I identify the data
collection method and sources. The data collection strategies, participants recruitment
procedures and the data analysis plan, along with how I deal with discrepant cases, is
explained in detail. I also address issues of credibility, transferability, dependability,
confirmability, as well as ethical procedure.
Research Design and Rationale
This study was designed to explore how teachers used different strategies with
technology to teach scientific inquiry skills in the middle school classroom. It was also
designed to capture their perceptions about their effectiveness with content, pedagogy,
and technology in the middle school science classroom. These four research questions
guided the study:
RQ 1: What strategies do middle school science teachers adopt when using
technology to teach science in the middle school classroom?
RQ 2: What are the technological tools that middle school science teachers use to
teach scientific inquiry skills, and which of these tools do teachers perceive to be
more meaningful?
144
RQ 3: Do the teachers feel that they are quite competent in their pedagogical
knowledge to use the technological tools and strategies they adopt to cover up the
content that is used in the middle school classroom?
RQ 4: What are the negative and positive factors that are related to their usage of
technological tools and strategies when teaching science in the middle school
classroom?
For this study, I compared qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research.
All three research methods have positives and negatives. A quantitative research study
was not applicable for this research study because I wanted more details about the
strategies that teachers used in the classroom. I wanted to talk directly with the
participants and gain their experience in their own words. Using a questionnaire or survey
would be an extra step for the participants (Aydemir et al., 2017) in my research study. A
mixed-methods research method was not applicable for this study because I would have
to use aspects of quantitative research for the participants, such as questionnaires,
surveys, and polls (Hughes, 2016).
I decided to use a qualitative method to capture detailed data from the
participants. Among the qualitative designs, I considered using a phenomenological
approach but rejected it because this approach focuses on the lived experiences of
participants (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). I also considered the grounded theory approach but
rejected it because the researcher is creating new theories as data is analyzed and
collected (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). I reviewed the narrative approach and rejected it
because I want to ask more questions that would yield deeper data (Strauss & Corbin,
145
1994). I considered the ethnography approach but rejected it because it focuses more on
cultural factors and this research study was not focusing on that aspect (Strauss & Corbin,
1994).
For this qualitative research study, I used a case study approach with the TPACK
model as the conceptual framework. I decided to use a case study design to gain a greater
understanding of how teachers use technology in the middle school classroom to teach
scientific inquiry skills (Hilton, 2016; Tokmak, 2015; Williams et al., 2017). This case
study design answered the how question and was a great way to distinguish the
phenomenon from the subject (Hilton, 2016; Tokmak, 2015; Williams et al., 2017). In
Hilton’s research study, the data were collected from case studies to gain insight for how
two veteran teachers incorporated technology in the classroom. The teachers were able to
reflect upon their technology use and explain their perceptions of success and failures
(Hilton, 2016). In Tokmak’s research study, the data were collected from case studies to
help participants understand how their TPACK development was perceived while
teaching scientific inquiry skills with technology in the middle school classroom. In
Williams et al.’s (2017) research study, a case study approach was used to gain the
perception of a teacher that implemented technology to teach scientific inquiry skills in
the classroom over two years to support student learning. The data collected yielded
which technological tools and strategies used by the teacher were meaningful.
Role of the Researcher
In this qualitative research study, I was the observer and the primary data
collector. I collected data interviewing participants. This research study was conducted at
146
middle schools in the Southeastern part of the United States. I had a professional
relationship with all teachers, administrators, and staff members at the school as I used to
work at the middle school as a science teacher. The participants are teachers that I had
worked with for five years or less. I did not have any supervisory positions while I
worked as a teacher at this school. There were no concerns of power or undue influence
because I am no longer employed in the school district or at the same school. As such
there was no way that conflict or bias could occur.
Methodology
In this section I identify the population, justify the sampling strategy, state the
number of participants and justify the sample size. I discuss the basis for the instrument
that was developed for this research study and describe how content validity affects it. I
discuss the data analysis plan and identify how the data connects to the research
questions, the procedures for coding, software analysis, and how discrepant cases are
treated.
Participant Selection
The target population for the research study are middle school science teachers
who have at least one year of teaching experience in the middle school. The target
population was not limited by disabilities or any health impairments. A purposeful
sampling strategy was applied to this research study. Ruggiero and Mong (2015) reported
purposive sampling would identify and select those individuals with specific
characteristics that fit the criteria of a research study to answer the research question. I
focused on certain characteristics of the target population. The target participants fulfilled
147
the following common factors: teaching science in the middle school for at least one year
and have used technological tools in their classroom.
I submitted my IRB Application to conduct the research. After receiving IRB
approval (Approval No. 02-27-20-0398946), I contacted the principal of the school by
email to ask for a list of email addresses of the middle school science teachers. In that
email I included a confidentiality agreement to assure the principal that the email
addresses were only used for the purpose of contact regarding this research study. In the
email to the science teachers, I included the description of the research study, the consent
form and criteria questions. All middle school science teachers who meet the criteria were
invited to participate and were contacted via email. I used a purposeful and criterion
selection strategy; therefore, 10 participants were considered to be adequate to provide
sufficient answers to the research questions for this research study (Bippert, 2019;
JaipalJamani & Figg, 2015). I planned to respond to the first 10 participants who
submitted their signed consent form. I allowed for a window of 3 weeks after sending the
email to receive responses. The first 10 participants (Minshew & Anderson, 2015) who
submitted their signed consent form would receive a confirmation email stating that they
were selected to participate in the research study with more details that related to the
research study and interview. The consent form includes privacy information, the problem
statement and purpose of the research study, along with the social impact of the study to
the field of science and technology.
148
Saturation occurs as data is collected and the same themes or patterns are repeated
by the participants. I planned to use the same interview protocol with each of the
participants; therefore, saturation would occur by the time I finished the interviews.
Instrumentation
The purpose of this qualitative research case study was to gather information
about the technological tools that could be adopted to make the teaching of scientific
inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms more meaningful and gainful to
student. I decided to use an interview protocol (see Appendix A) to collect data. I used the
research questions to create detailed interview questions for the interview protocol. No
other historical or legal documents were needed as a source of data for the interview
protocol. Aydemir et al. (2017) stated that interviews were individualized semistructured
data collection tools that can help a researcher focus on the interviewee.
The interview protocol was developed by me. All questions were developed based
upon the focus in the research and literature sources of the research study. The questions
were placed in a table format to note how the interview questions relate to the research
questions. Content validity was established by citing the research questions and literature
sources as they correspond with the question. All research questions were linked to the
interview questions in tabular format (see Appendix B). The questions all pertained to the
expertise of the middle school science teachers as specialists in their field teaching
science and incorporating technology.
149
Procedures for Recruitment, Participation and Data Collection
I received IRB approval, and began recruitment for my research study by
contacting the principal of the school and asking for a list of email addresses of current
science teachers who meet the criteria. I sent introductory emails to all science teachers
with the consent form about the research study. The introductory email included the
description of the research study, the consent form, potential interview dates and times,
and participant criteria for the research study. I allowed for a window of 2–3 weeks
waittime for replies. I would accept the first five signed consent forms for the research
study and send those participants a confirmation email with their teleconference interview
date and time. As a result of school closures due to the coronavirus pandemic it became
impossible to recruit ten participants. I have explained the modifications to the research
study in Chapter 4.
The data were collected by me through teleconference interviews. I asked the
participants to make sure they are located in a quiet and private environment. I conducted
the interview and collected the data at the agreed upon time. This was a one-time
interview. The interview lasted about 60 minutes. The data were recorded, and the
teleconferencing software was used to record the interview. The participants exited the
study with instructions to contact me with any questions they may have related to their
responses and a request to email a lesson plan where they are using technology to me.
They received their online gift card via email within 3 business days. If any participant
chose to exit the research study early, they were thanked for their willingness and
response. No one chose to exit the research study early. For my follow-up, I contacted the
150
interviewees to ask additional questions about their responses. I reminded them that they
can receive a transcript of their responses to the interview questions to review. If
participants agreed with the transcript, no further action would be needed on their part. If
they disagreed, then they could correct the transcript and return it via email. The
participants declined to receive a transcript.
A deductive coding software, NVIVO was used to decode all data in the research
study. The decoding software was used to decode and analyze all four research questions.
Before starting the interviews, I developed a basic codebook (see Appendix C) according
to themes and research questions. I applied line-by-line coding to analyze the data to
include all the details. I categorized the data according to the themes already present in
the codebook. If new themes emerged, they were included in the codebook. Discrepant
cases were handled as they arose. If a participant gave a vague response, I asked probing
questions and asked for more clarification to resolve the discrepancy. A transcript of the
interview was created and made available.
Trustworthiness
In this section I discuss credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability about this research study. I also discuss the ethical procedures that were
related to this research study this research study.
Credibility
Establishing credibility is one of the most important pieces of qualitative research
studies and refers to the accuracy or trustworthiness of the data (Statistic Solutions,
2019). I used member checks to ensure the accuracy and trustworthiness of the data. The
151
interview data were transcribed. The participants were offered a copy of the transcript for
their interview to clarify their responses and correct any errors. The participants declined
to receive a copy of their transcripts.
Transferability
Providing thick, rich descriptions is important and determines how findings are
transferred. I provided detailed explanations about the study and the techniques I used to
collect and analyze the data. I created a researcher’s journal with detailed and thick
descriptions of my experience interviewing the participants. I discussed the interviews
which were conducted via teleconference and I asked the participants to describe their
setting. I described if the interview was taking place before work or after work for my
participant.
Dependability
Dependability refers to whether the results are consistent with the data collected
(Statistics Solutions, 2019). Dependability also referred to the steadiness or reliability of
the process of inquiry. Participants were selected based upon their teaching assignment,
having one year of teaching experience, and using technology in the classroom. The
consent form was sent to all science teachers at the school, and I selected the first five
teachers who sent back their signed consent form. I used member checks and the actual
interview notes to establish reliability. I used the interview notes and transcripts to
triangulate the data. I had an outside researcher examine the data collection process, data
analysis process, and results of the research study to confirm the accuracy of the findings.
The external auditor was another colleague who was familiar with analyzing and
152
interpreting data. I checked the audit trail and looked at how the data were recorded to
establish dependability for the research study.
Confirmability
Confirmability is the extent to which the research findings are confirmed by
others. I used a specific coding procedure to ensure the dependability of the data and kept
a detailed notebook which contained the dates, times, and places of each interview.
Verbatim data were included in the notebook from each interview. Categories and
emerging themes were captured during the interview. The notebook included detailed
notes about the processes I used to collect, analyze, and interpret the data. I placed
specific responses together according to theme and explained the meaning of the theme
and rationale for how it related to the research study, as well as related the theme to
literature, and related to the research.
Ethical Procedures
I received permission from the school district to conduct the research study at the
school. I followed all protocols the school had to conduct the research study. The Walden
Institutional Review Board’s approval was needed to conduct this research study. I
submitted the required application and all related materials, to obtain approval. I attached
approval from the school or school district granting permission to conduct the research.
Once permission was received from The Walden Institutional Review Board, I proceeded
with conducting the research study.
Human participants participated in this research study. The human participants
were treated fairly, and justly, according to the National Institutes of Health. I completed
153
the National Institutes of Health Ethics training in September 2018 and received the
certificate of completion. No undue stress or harm was anticipated in this research study
for the participants.
The research study was conducted in two middle schools where I had previously
worked. I had established professional relationships with some the of the faculty and staff
members at the middle schools. My professional relationship with the faculty and staff
did not impact my role as a researcher for this research study. I abided by the rules set
forth for the qualitative research study where I recorded responses verbatim. I recorded
each participant’s words carefully and asked follow-up questions if I did not understand
them clearly. I developed transcripts of the participant’s responses from the interviews
and kept a reflective journal of my own thoughts and referred to the journal as I looked
over the transcripts of the interviews to avoid confirmation bias.
The data were coded, confidential, and anonymous. To keep their responses
confidential, each participant was assigned a number and letter combination: P1, P2, P3,
P4, and P5. The data were kept in a password-protected secure file on a secure hard drive.
I have the password for the file. I have a secure data back-up system in place in the case
of file corruption or damage. All papers that were generated as a result of this research
study are locked in a secure location with a confidential password that I can only access.
The data will be kept secured for 5 years and then destroyed. The data includes interview
responses, interview audio recordings, transcripts, signed informed consent forms, and
any email communication with the participants.
154
Summary
In Chapter 3, I introduced the chapter and identified the research design, rationale,
and role of the researcher. I established the methodology for this research study. The
methodology was described in detail for replication of the research study. I described the
process for conducting the research study beginning with submitting the application and
ending with how the participants will exit the study. I discussed how the research study
will be conducted and data analysis plan. All relevant appendices were named and
included in the chapter. The issues with trustworthiness were identified and explained. I
explained how I would handle credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability. Ethical procedures were discussed, and strategies to solve issues were
described.
Chapter 4 identifies the data collection and data analysis processes. Tables and
figures are presented as data is analyzed and displayed.
Chapter 4: Results
The purpose of this qualitative research case study was to gather information
about the technological tools that could be adopted to make the teaching of scientific
inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms more meaningful and gainful to the
students.
My focus in this chapter was central to the research questions used in the study:
RQ 1: What strategies do middle school science teachers adopt when using
technology to teach science in the middle school classroom?
155
RQ 2: What are the technological tools that middle school science teachers use to
teach scientific inquiry skills, and which of these tools do teachers perceive to be
more meaningful?
RQ 3: Do the teachers feel that they are quite competent in their pedagogical
knowledge to use the technological tools and strategies they adopt to cover the
content that is used in the middle school classroom?
RQ 4: What are the negative and positive factors that are related to their usage of
technological tools and strategies when teaching science in the middle school
classroom?
In this chapter, I describe the research study setting, along with the external
conditions that may have influenced the participants’ involvement in this study. In
particular, the closure of the schools due to the coronavirus pandemic resulted in changes
to the study. The demographic information relevant to the research study is also
presented. The strategies adopted for data collection and the analysis process are
described. The tactics used for coding, categorizing, and thematic analysis processes, as
well as any resulting discrepancies, are described in detail. Factors associated with
trustworthiness, credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability are
adequately dealt with.
Study Setting
This study was conducted in two suburban middle schools in the southeastern
region of the United States. Both served Grades 6th, 7th, and 8th. The population of the
schools were 905 students in the first school and 525 students in the second school. In the
156
first school, roughly 80% of the student population were White, 18% were Black, and 2%
were Asian, Biracial, or Pacific Islanders. There were 65 faculty and staff members; 11
White female and 2 White male staff members taught science. This campus had an
economically advantaged population of students, where approximately 90% of students
had technological devices and Internet access at home (see Figure 1).
In the second school, roughly 94% of the student population were Black, 6% were
White, and 1% was Asian, Biracial, or Pacific Islanders. There were 45 faculty and staff
members; three White female and five Black female staff members taught science. This
campus had an economically disadvantaged population of students, where approximately
80% of students did not have technological devices and internet access at home (see
Figure 1).
Figure 1. Student population.
This study’s data collection began as the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic
struck the United States. I had difficulty contacting the school principal for the first
school. All nonessential businesses were closed, including schools, colleges, and
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
White
Black
Other (Asian, Pacific
Islander, Biracial)
80
18
2
6
94
1
School #1
School #2
157
universities due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. Due to this difficulty, I
decided to add a second school to the research study. The research agreement with the
school district did not limit me to one school. A second IRB approval was not needed.
I emailed the principal of the first school twice, allowing 2 weeks in-between
emails for a response. I did not receive a response. I finally reached out to former
colleagues who were not related to the research study and asked that they contact the
principal for a response. After 4 weeks of waiting, I received a response with the names
and email addresses of possible participants from the first school. I composed and sent
emails to those potential participant teachers. Only three out of the seven teachers I
emailed consented to participate from the first school. I realized that number of
participants was not sufficient for the research study.
After discussing this issue with my committee, I realized that I should not limit
my study to one middle school in the area. I received prior approval from the school
district to contact any school in their district; therefore, I contacted the principal at a
different middle school for possible teacher participants’ names and email addresses.
After a week of waiting, the principal replied with a list of names and email addresses. I
contacted those teachers via email requesting their participation in the research study. Out
of the eight teachers, only two responded and consented to participate in the research
study, therefore giving me a total of five participants.
Due to the geographic distance between myself and the participants, the
interviews were scheduled to be conducted by teleconference. The five participants
included possible dates and times for their interview in their consent emails. I confirmed
158
the dates and sent each participant a link for their teleconference interview. Shortly after,
there was a rapid and sudden school closures, making it difficult to secure participants for
this research study. Since the original number of participants changed from ten to five, the
Research Committee and URR were also consulted. Due to the unexpected conditions,
approval to use a lesser number was approved as other qualitative case studies have been
conducted with fewer participants (Williams et al., 2017). The lesson plan reviews and
follow up questions helped to make this study as robust as possible under the
circumstances.
Demographics
The participants in this research study were middle school science teachers who
had been teaching middle school science for at least 1 year and have used technology in
their science classroom. The participants were from two different schools. The five
participants were all White female teachers. The range of their years of teaching varied
from 5-30 years. All participants taught science, with one participant teaching math in
addition to science (see Table 1).
Table 1
Demographics
Participant
Years of experience
Grade level
Subject taught
1
18
6th
Science
2
7
6th
Science
3
23
7th
Science
4
30
8th
Science and Math
5
5
7th
Science
159
Data Collection
In this research study, data were collected from three sources, the initial interview,
the follow-up email, and the lesson plans. The participants were middle school science
teachers from two different schools who had been teaching middle school science for at
least one year and had been using technology in the classroom. Each participant
consented to the initial interview via teleconference and consented to submit a lesson
plan. The data were collected via teleconference while the participants were in their
homes, which they felt was the most comfortable and convenient place to conduct the
interview.
Each participant received a confirmation email with the date and time of the
interview, confirming their participation in the research study. At the scheduled time, each
participant logged onto the Zoom link that was sent in confirmation email. The Zoom
teleconference was audio-only. The participants were thanked for their willingness to
participate in the research study, and each participant was reminded that the Zoom
teleconference was being recorded. All five participants were at their home for the
interview in a comfortable location of their choice which was free from distractions.
I began the interview with the first interview question. The participants were
asked about their years using technology to teach scientific content. The participants
discussed their comfort level with technology. They all indicated that they were
comfortable using basic technological devices like laptops and tablets. They also
discussed using technology at home to stay abreast of current technology trends. The
participants’ years using technology spanned from 2–20 years.
160
Each teleconference lasted approximately 60 minutes. The interviews were
recorded using the teleconference software, Zoom. Some participants gave one-word
responses, and I asked probing questions to obtain additional responses from the
participants. I was careful not to monopolize the conversation but made an effort to get
the participants to respond to my questions in detail.
The participants emailed their lesson plans to me. I asked the participants if there
was a universal lesson plan template, they all used, and their responses were no. They
stated that the lesson plans only needed to include the standard, the objective, the focus
question, the procedures, and the assessment. The lesson plans were analyzed according
to the lesson plan codebook (see Appendix I) for the scientific inquiry skill taught,
technology tools used, and technology instruction, as described in the section on data
analysis.
Because the number of participants were limited, I planned to conduct follow-up
interviews with the participants. I sent follow-up emails to the participants approximately
two weeks later, asking the five participants if they could participate in a follow-up
interview. The official school year had ended; therefore, I contacted the participants via
email asking for another teleconference interview and three out of the five agreed to
answer additional questions. The three participants did not consent to another time to
speak with me but expressed interest in having the questions emailed to them. I agreed
and emailed the follow-up questions to the three participants and requested they send
back their responses within three days, and all of them very kindly fulfilled this request.
161
Data Analysis
The process of analysis which includes the interview and lesson plans are
organized by RQs. In this section, I describe the data analysis for each of the three data
points: interviews, lesson plans, and follow-up emails. As the analysis for interview and
follow up differed from that for lesson plan, I have separated them into two sections. I
used the components of the TPACK model to explore how the four themes: teaching
strategies, technology tools used, teacher competency, and positive and negative factors
with technology are embedded into how the participants interact with their students. The
TPACK model combines content knowledge, pedagogy knowledge, and technology
knowledge. All three are needed to successfully teach technology in the classroom.
Initial Interview and Follow-up Emails
Three days following the interviews, each interview was transcribed using an
online transcription service. Since all five participants declined to view their transcripts, I
had a colleague check the transcripts against the interview audio for discrepancies and
errors. None were found; therefore, I copied the transcripts to NVivo to categorize the
data according to pre-established themes. The following pre-established themes were
based on the research questions: teaching strategies, technology tools used, teacher
competency, which covers pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge, and positive
and negative factors with technology. I sent follow-up emails to gather more experiences
of the participants’ use of technology in the classroom and gather more meaningful data. I
composed an email to the participants (see Appendix D). The email was sent within two
weeks of the teleconference, and the participants were asked to respond within three days.
162
The responses to the four questions asked were crossed-referenced with the previous
responses. In comparison, the responses were the same from the initial interview. There
were no new themes that emerged nor new coding needed for the responses.
Data classification was easier when I used the research questions as guides to
create the themes. The coding process yielded the following categories for the themes.
For RQ1, teaching strategies: authentic learning and project-based learning. For RQ2,
technology tools used, hardware, software, and peripherals. For RQ3, teacher
competency: pedagogy knowledge and content knowledge. For RQ4, positive and
negative Factors with Technology: student performance and teacher technology
knowledge. I explained more about these categories under each research question below
(see Table 2).
Table 2
Coding of Data and Research Questions
The next section describes how the theme connects with the research question.
The theme is explained, and examples are included to show how they relate.
Teaching strategies
r1
Authentic learning (online
publishing, podcasts and videos),
project-based learning (student
choice, differentiation)
Technology tools used
r2
Hardware, software, peripherals
Teacher competency
r3
Pedagogy knowledge, content
knowledge
Positive and negative factors with
technology
r4
Student performance, teacher
technology knowledge
Theme
Research
q
uestion
Category
163
Research Question 1
R1: What strategies do middle school science teachers adopt when using
technology to teach science in the middle school classroom?
The theme of this question was teaching strategies. There were two categories that
emerged from the data analysis: authentic learning (online publishing, online podcasts,
and videos) and project-based learning (student choice and differentiation). One authentic
learning strategy was online publishing. P5 stated, “I use Google Slides and post my
lectures online. The students take notes at their own pace reading my post.” Another
authentic learning strategy was using podcasts and online videos to increase content
knowledge with students. For authentic learning, the participants used real-world
knowledge in an online and mobile learning environment, Google Classroom by posting
the tasks that students were expected to complete. P4 stated, “I use Google Classroom to
post my Pendulum Lab videos and directions. Students were expected to follow the
directions to gather data and complete the lab. I want them to understand the value of
mass.” P2 also used Authentic Learning and posted directions for the students to “use the
outside weather stations to gather data about today’s weather and forecast tomorrow’s
weather.” P2 stated further, “students will learn more about weather when they are
interacting with it in real-life.”
Project-based learning (PBL) was used as participants assigned a project that
students had to complete on their own. One PBL strategy was using the Tic-Tac-Toe
Student Choice Board Project Board. P3 stated, “We do PBL. I give students a choice of
at-home projects for students to complete in Google Classroom.” P5 used Project-Based
164
Learning by giving students an option for a formative assessment. P5 stated, “Students
have to make a weather map forecasting the weather for three days, and they have to
show their home on the map. Students can create an actual map or one online.” Followup
questions were not required for RQ 1, because the interview responses were clear and
consistent.
Research Question 2
R2: What are the technological tools that middle school science teachers use to
teach scientific inquiry skills, and which of these tools do teachers perceive to be more
meaningful?
The theme that emerged was technology tools used. Three categories emerged
from the data analysis: hardware, software, and peripherals.
The hardware used included Apple iPads, Google Chromebooks, document
cameras, temperature probes, stopwatches, and calculators. P1, P2, and P5 were given a
classroom set of Google Chromebooks for use in their classroom. P1 stated, “I have a
class set Chromebooks, and I use them daily with my students. I am lucky because not all
teachers received a class set. I don’t have to search and borrow from someone else. I also
have a working document camera.” P3 did not have a classroom set of Google
Chromebooks or Apple iPads. P3 stated, “Students in our grade level, we are one-to-one,
and devices were issued at the beginning of the year, and they keep them and bring them
to class. It could be a Chromebook or an iPad.” P4 had a classroom set of Apple iPads to
use. P 4 stated, “I have iPads and I use those in class with the students and we also use
stopwatches with the Pendulum lab and iPads.” P4 recalled teaching a lesson where the
165
objective was to compare and contrast different animal habitats. In relation to the
technological tools used, P4 wrote:
Students will complete an article analysis about animals, comparing and
contrasting their habitats. The students will use the iPads to read articles and
answer questions about the animal habitats. They can select and complete two
articles, but they MUST receive an 88 or a 100, or it does not count.
P3 and P4 expressed some frustration with always having to borrow Google
Chromebooks or even Apple iPads from another teacher. The participants expressed that
there was a limited number of Google Chromebook carts and sets of Apple iPads in the
school to share. P4 pointed out the difficulties they faced when using technology, “I have
iPads, but I can’t use them all the time for interactive labs, and it was hard to borrow
Chromebooks when the teachers were using them. There are no extras in the school.”
Each participant agreed that due to the limited number of technological tools available,
all teachers cannot have access to technology. P4 also stated, “We are expected to use
technology because we received the grant, but because it’s hard when you can’t access
the technology you need.” It was clear from the opinions expressed by the teachers the
lack of access to technology all of the time affected their technology competency. This
was evident from some of the ideas that emerged when question 4 was discussed with the
participants.
The software that was commonly used included Google Suite software and Adobe
Flash Player. The Google Suite software included: documents, spreadsheets,
presentations, and surveys. All participants used the Google Suite Software along with
166
Google Classroom for student work. P1 stated, “The students use Google Docs to type
their responses and post in the classroom.” P2 stated, “We use Google Slides to take
notes. I post the slides in Google Classroom and the students read them and take notes
from the slides.” P3 adopted a different approach as she stated, “I use spreadsheets and
Google Sheets are easy to connect in Google Classroom for the students to access.”
The Adobe Flash Player software could only be used on Google Chromebooks.
P1 stated that “Chromebooks help kids gather data quickly and in-depth. The flash player
is good for interactive websites, like Nearpod.” P2 and P4 also stated, “the Adobe Flash
Player software does not work on iPads because iPads are not compatible with the Adobe
Flash Player software.” Furthermore, their responses indicated that peripherals are used
as needed. There are headphones, computer mice, and mousepads available. P1 stated, “I
keep a few computer mice in my class for students who struggle with clicking.” P5
stated, “I keep a few headphones available for students. But the expectation is they bring
their own headphone or earbuds to class.”
In the follow up email, I asked the following question related to how technology
tools were used. Q1: Can you describe how you use technology to teach scientific inquiry
skills? P2 described using technology for online videos and virtual labs. P3 stated, “A
typical unit would be an introductory lab and students would explore the information, I
would give a lecture, and then we do a lab.” P5 used technology “mostly for lectures and
videos, to show the students multiple forms of the same thing. I also use technology for
PBL and research.”
167
The second question in the follow-up email was Q2: Are there any specific
technological tools that you favor in your classroom and why? P2, P3, and P5 all replied
Google Chromebooks. The responses were similar “Google Chromebooks use flash
player and students can access online lab simulations.” The coding process also yielded
two subcategories: helpful technology and nonhelpful technology. Helpful technology
was technology that is useful in learning and is multifunctional in use. Nonhelpful
technology was technology that was not useful in learning and was not multifunctional in
use.
Helpful technology referred to using Google Chromebooks because of the
multifunctionality of the device. The participants were adamant that the Google
Chromebook had more versatility to surf the web and use interactive websites. The device
had a screen, touchpad, and keyboard which made it easier to use and navigate websites.
Students were able to type and submit assignments online easily. This was apparent
within the responses of the participants. Helpful technology also referred to other laptops,
tablets, calculators, scales, stopwatches, and other various scientific equipment used in
class. Specific software programs were considered helpful technology. The Adobe Flash
Player software was mentioned by each participant as being important for the success of
accessing interactive websites, like Nearpod and Explore Learning Gizmos: Math and
Science Simulations. Some participants had computer mice; another helpful technology
available for students who struggled with using the touchpad. Students brought their
earbuds or headphones, more helpful technology to use with their device.
168
There were not enough technological devices available for each student to have
one. The lack of available devices was not helpful for student learning. Nonhelpful
technology referred to the use of Apple iPads and their lack of multifunctionality and
limited use. Apple iPads were limited in navigation and accessibility to online labs and
simulations that require Adobe Flash player software. Other nonhelpful technology were
the science probes that were old, outdated, and no longer sustained by the school or
company. A few participants mentioned that they were no longer used because the probes
no longer work properly, and there were newer versions but no funding to purchase them.
“The science department has a few temperature probes that do not work” (Participant 3,
personal communication, May 5, 2020). One participant mentioned there was a cabinet of
nonhelpful technology. P2 stated “there are devices that are either broken, old, or no one
remembers how to use them.”
Research Question 3
R3: Do the teachers feel that they are quite competent in their pedagogical
knowledge to use the technological tools and strategies they adopt to cover the content
that is used in the middle school classroom?
The themes that emerged were teacher competency with pk and ck. P1, P2, P3,
P4, and P5 felt they were competent with using pedagogical knowledge to teach scientific
process skills. P1 stated, “I love teaching labs where we collect data. We use the
Chromebooks to collect and organize it for the lab.” P2, and P4 discussed “liking the
flexibility of technology with hands-on lessons.” P4 stated, “I love technology and being
able to incorporate it into my lessons is great. I make sure my students are focused, and I
169
always monitor them while they are on the computers.” All participants discussed the
content they taught. P1 stated, “I teach earth and physical science concepts. I have been
doing this for many years. I like certain lessons better.” P2 stated, “I prefer scientific
process skills. I love to teach data collection. That is the fun part.” P3 stated, “I love
teaching about the human body. That is my favorite unit. I have been teaching that for
over 12 years now. I think I have it down.” P4 stated, “I love geology. I like teaching
about rocks and minerals. I incorporate the scientific method into it, and I get great
results.” P5 stated, “My experience is growing. Each year I get better with my content.
My favorite is weather and animals. My students and I thrive with it” (see Table 3).
Table 3
Competency Matrix
Content
subject
Technological tool
adopted
Participant
usage
Earth Science
Chromebooks, document
camera, stopwatches
P1, P2, P4
Life Science
Chromebooks, iPads,
temperature probes,
P3
Physical Science
Chromebooks, document
cameras, temperature probes
P1, P2, P3, P5
Scientific Process Skills
Chromebooks, iPads, document
camera, stopwatches,
temperature probes
P1, P2, P3, P4, P5
Some participants spoke about the challenges of teaching scientific inquiry skills
online without the hands-on learning component. P3 stated that “before the coronavirus,
we were able to be hands-on with tech, now that we are virtual, the hands-on is missing.”
P4 also stated, “Now that we are virtual, I am not able to teach like I used to, we had to
adjust, and it is not the same.” Due to the coronavirus pandemic, all teachers felt that they
170
were not as effective as they were when they were teaching face-to-face with their
students. When asked if all students benefit equally from the use of technological tools
before the school closures, all participants replied no. P1 stated, “They benefit from them,
not equally. It is an extra resource for them. There is a misconception that you see it on a
computer screen.” Participant 2 stated, “Learning styles are different. We monitor and
adjust. Kids who use tech will click anything just to turn something in. We try to use
personalized instruction. Not all students benefit from technology or personalized
learning.” P3 stated, “Some kids need more guidance than others. The benefit is the same
collectively. I didn’t get anything. Technology helps all students. There isn’t one way for
all students.” P4 stated, “In a way, it evens the playing field during the school day. Not at
home because technology waivers and differs at home.” P5 stated, “No, Kids are kids and
they distract easily. No program to monitor the computer. They get lost in YouTube and
games. They don’t take the things as seriously.” P5 also displayed pedagogical
knowledge by starting the lesson with a Warm-Up Activity for the students. After the
Warm-Up Activity, a demonstration of the Lab Activity was completed, and questions
were answered by the teacher. Next, students completed individual practice by
completing the activity. Last, students completed an assessment with the Exit Ticket.
Research Question 4
R4: What are the negative and positive factors that are related to their usage of
technological tools and strategies when teaching science in the middle school classroom?
One positive factor with using technology was that Google products were used as
an alternative for displaying science content for students. P3 felt that “utilizing Google
171
Slides and Google Classroom for notetaking was great for allowing the students to work
at their own pace.” P3 also noted that “online lab simulations and Google Forms are easy
for the students to fill out. Therefore, they are used often.” P2 noted that “before the
coronavirus pandemic, Google Classroom was used once a week. Now it is used daily
with online learning. Digital websites like YouTube and Vimeo are used, as well as virtual
field trips.” Other positive factors involved P4 and P5 using online educational games as
incentives for students to complete their work in class. They stated very clearly,
“I use Kahoot as a reward for students. We play a fun round after they finish their work.”
The main negative factor all participants emphasized was about the use of iPads
for learning. The participants felt that iPads only offered a few good features. According
to what the participants stated, it was difficult to use them for any online interactive
websites. They lacked Adobe flash player which is a key component for the interactive
websites to work, and the lack of a keyboard made it difficult for students to log into and
log out of the device properly. The iPads were not built for stability and could not be
placed at an angle on the table for maximum functionality and view. The above point was
proved by the following statements of P1, “iPads are not good for Gizmos, the flash
player will not work at all.” P3 stated “iPads are not easy to log into and out of because
there is no physical keyboard.” The participants said there was no additional funding for
attachments, like portable keyboards and hard iPad cases, to make the iPads more
accommodating for the students to use. In addition, P3 stated, “Once the technology grant
funding ran out, there was nothing left to purchase portable keyboards and stationary hard
iPad cases with.” Another negative factor related to the use of technology was made
172
clearly when P1 and P2 reiterated that students could become bored with technology. P2
stated, “students tend to become bored with the same routine. Using technology daily can
present a problem, because the students tend to rush through their work just to finish
early.”
In the follow-up email, I asked 2 additional questions related to positive and
negative factors with technology usage. Q3: How did they use technology without taking
away from their teaching style? P2 said “Teachers care about what they are talking about
and I want them (students) to hear my voice and I hear their voice. Tech is good to
present information and assess how much they understand of that information, but I talk
to my students. P3 expressed the routine she adopts when she said, “Most of the time I
use technology to display my PowerPoints or videos, I am not a huge technologically
savvy teacher, but I get by.” P5 stated, “it varies and depends on what is being taught in
the classroom. Different content requires different activities and technology.”
Q4: What intrigues you most about technology? P2 stated “As technology
programs grow, more money can be funneled into them leading to a good balance of
technology in the classroom.” P3 said “I learn new things. Having tech helps me do that.
Especially in Astronomy. Learning about new discoveries.” P5 stated, “Students have
different resources in front of them. They can look things up and get a different point of
view.”
173
Lesson Plans
After the data from the interview questions were analyzed I focused on the lesson
plans obtained from the participants and analyzed the content based on the format
provided in Table 4 (see Table 4).
Table 4
Lesson Plan Evaluation Table
Four aspects included in
the lesson plan
Questions used when
evaluating the lesson plan
Relationship to the
research questions
Objectives
Does the objectives
embedded in the lesson
plan show any evidence of
the use of technological
tools?
RQ1
Focused questions
Does the questions
included in the lesson plan
show that different
strategies are used by the
teachers during the lesson?
RQ2
Procedures
Does the procedures
adopted by the teachers
when developing the lesson
show that technological
tools are used by the
teachers during the lesson
RQ2
Assessments
Does the assessment
system adopted show any
indication that the students
are encouraged to use
technology?
RQ3, RQ4
Lesson plans were submitted by each participant and analyzed according to the
four aspects: objectives, focused questions, procedures, and assessments listed in Table 4.
174
Each participant taught either 6th, 7th, or 8th grade science. I noticed that the 6th grade
lesson plans focused on the environment, the 7th grade lesson plans focused on body
systems, and the 8th grade lesson plan focused on physics. The lesson plans were used to
corroborate the participants’ responses to teaching scientific inquiry skills with
technology. The lesson plans were only used for that purpose.
I began my analysis by looking at each lesson plan for the objective and science
content standards. I applied the first question Does the objectives embedded in the lesson
plan show any evidence of the use of technological tools? For each lesson plan, the
response was yes. While the science content standards were different, the scientific
inquiry skill standards were similar. The scientific inquiry skills: gathering data,
communication, and data analysis were all included in the lesson plans. Each lesson plan
included a technology tool, as well as a data collection task. Students were completing
different tasks on the iPads or Chromebooks. P1 noted, “students will log into their
Chromebooks and complete the Daily Science Warmup.” P2 stated, “the teacher will use
the document camera and demonstrate how to fill out the data worksheet.” P3 was
completing the Pendulum Lab and wrote “the students will use a stopwatch to collect data
by recording the number of swings from the pendulum in 30 seconds.” P4 wrote, “the
student will be able to collect data using the triple beam balance scale.” P5 stated, “using
the iPads, students will record themselves giving a 60 second weather forecast.”
I then looked for the focus question and applied the second question Does the
questions included in the lesson plan show that different strategies are used by the
teachers during the lesson? For each lesson plan, the response was yes. The questions
175
included in the lesson plan showed that the teachers used different strategies. The
information derived from the lesson plans related to different aspects were described
below. In her lesson plan P1 wrote, “What is the difference between a metal and a
nonmetal?” The lesson plan also revealed that P1 used an Authentic Learning strategy
where the students had a selection of everyday objects to categorize as metals and
nonmetals. In her lesson plan P2 stated, “the student will jump, hop, and walk backwards,
tracking the time it takes for them to travel 50 feet.” P2 also indicated that she used an
Authentic Learning strategy, applying real-world actions with the activity. The focus
question that related to the above activity was What is the speed of a student has who
hopped 50 feet? P3 wrote, that “she will have the students to count the number of swings
in a 30 second period with a stopwatch.” This Authentic Learning strategy used a
stopwatch to record time. The focus question related to the above activity was How many
swings can the pendulum make in 30 seconds? P4 and P5 used Project Based Learning
strategies. In their lesson plans it was stated that the students will watch videos and
complete different tasks to create personal projects based on the focus question. P4’s
question was “How can the triple beam balance scale be used to weigh objects?” P5’s
question was “How can you forecast the weather?” In the lesson plans of both P4 and P5
the students were made to create graphs and video projects to achieve the intended
objective.
Next, I looked at each lesson plan for the procedures. The third question was
applied, Does the procedures adopted by the teachers when developing the lesson show
that technological tools are used by the teachers during the lesson? For each lesson plan,
176
the response was yes. Each materials section of the lesson plans listed technological tools
like Chromebooks, iPads, stopwatches, triple beam balance scales, and calculators. It was
planned to make the students use technology to complete in-class activities. In the
Procedures section of each lesson plan, the teachers also included the tools in their
directions. According to what was included in the lesson plan of P1, “The students will
use the Chromebook to research the different objects to classify them as metal or
nonmetal.” In P2’s lesson, it was indicated that the “students would use the stopwatch to
time how many times a student can hop in 30 seconds.” In relation to the same P3 had
written “The students will use the calculator to calculate the average number of swings in
30 seconds with three washers.” P4 had indicated that “the students would weigh each
object on the triple beam balance scale and record the mass on their spreadsheet using the
iPad.” P5 wrote in her lesson, “Students will use the iPad to record a 60 second video of
themselves giving a weather forecast.” Thus, it was evident that the contents of the lesson
plans confirmed what the participants responses indicated.
Last, I looked at the lesson plans for the assessments and applied the 4th question:
Does the assessment system adopted show any indication that the students are
encouraged to use technology? For each lesson plan the response was yes. All lesson
plans incorporated technology into the assessment. P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5 incorporated
the Promethean Board to display student work and exit tickets. Students used either the
iPad or Chromebook to complete the exit ticket before leaving class. What the
participants had written in their lesson plans in relation to the assessment system was
described below. For example, in her lesson plan P5 wrote, “What is the importance of
177
weather forecasting to society?” Student had to type their response in the Google Doc and
submit it. P4 wrote, “Students will use their device to complete the Google Form Exit
ticket.” P3, P2, and P1 wanted students “to type their exit ticket response in the Google
Classroom comments under the question.”
Thus, after the comparison of the data from the Lesson Plan Codebook with that
of the data from Interview Codebook it was evident that the content was similar to what
the participants said and what they wrote. One similarity was using technology in the
classroom to deliver information. The participants described using Google Classroom as
an information portal to disseminate information. They also listed Google Classroom in
their lesson plans as a software tool the students used to find and input information. P3
stated “I post all of my assignments in Google Classroom for the students to find. I also
post copies of their documents there.” P3 wrote in the lesson plan that “students will
access Google Classroom to find their assignment for the day.”
Another similarity was using technology to complete classwork and tasks. The
participants described using Google Chromebooks, iPads, and scientific equipment to
complete labs, assessments, and projects. In the lesson plans, they listed the same
equipment under the Materials section and in the Procedures section. P1 said, “We use
Chromebooks to complete our daily science work.” P1 wrote under Procedures “1.
Students will go to their desk and open the Chromebook, log in to Google Classroom,
and complete the daily science work listed there.”
One final similarity was the use of pedagogical skills to teach content. P5 stated,
“I split the class into groups of 4 to make the project more manageable and split the
responsibilities in the group. I can work with each group this way.” P5 wrote, “Students
178
will work in groups of 4 to complete the project. The teacher will assign roles in each
group. The teacher will monitor and adjust each group as needed.”
The lesson plan analysis also revealed each lesson plan had objectives, science
content standards, a focus question, procedures, and an assessment. The teachers used
technology and pedagogical skills to teach science content and scientific inquiry skills to
their students. They used different strategies and materials to engage the students and
keep them focused on learning.
Evidence of Trustworthiness
In this section, I discuss how the factors related to trustworthiness of a study
namely credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability are safeguarded in
this research study.
Credibility
Establishing credibility was one of the most important pieces of qualitative
research studies and referred to the accuracy or trustworthiness of the data (Statistic
Solutions, 2019). In my study, member checks were used to ensure the accuracy and
trustworthiness of the data. The interview data were transcribed, and the opportunity was
given to the participants to review their responses. The participants opted not to review
their responses; therefore, they did not receive a copy of their interview transcript.
However, the follow-up email questions allowed me to ensure the accuracy of their
responses.
179
Transferability
Providing thick, rich descriptions were important and can determine how findings
can be transferred. I provided detail explanations about the study and the techniques used
to collect and analyze the data. I created a researcher’s journal and detailed my
experience interviewing the participants. All interviews were conducted via
teleconference. All participants were at home when the interview was conducted due to
the coronavirus pandemic. The above adopted measures ensured the transferability of this
study.
Dependability
Dependability refers to whether the results were consistent with the collected data
and the reliability of the inquiry process. (Statistics Solutions, 2019). I used member
checks, interview notes, and the follow-up interview notes, as well as analyzing the
content of the lesson plans to establish the reliability and triangulate data. An external
auditor was used to examine the data to establish dependability for the research study.
The results were consistent with the data. The inquiry process was reliable and conducted
in a consistent way.
Confirmability
Confirmability was the extent to which the research findings were confirmed by
others. I used a specific coding procedure to ensure the validity of the data and kept
detailed notes which contained the dates, times, and places of each interview. Verbatim
data were included in each interview. All interviews were transcribed. All emerging
themes were captured during the interview. Specific responses were grouped according to
180
the theme, and the explanation for how it related to the research study was noted. I also
examined the results that emerged with the existing information in the literature review.
Results
The results of the analysis for all three data points are discussed and organized by
RQs. RQ1 results revealed that the participants used authentic learning and project-based
learning (PBL) as strategies to teach scientific inquiry skills to students. The participants
discussed how they used different strategies like real-time feedback with online
assessments and posting assignments in the Google classroom to teach scientific inquiry
skills. The lesson plans submitted by the participants showed their use of Google
Classroom as a real-time location to post assignments and feedback for each student. The
lesson plans also reflected the strategy used, listing the websites and online assessments
along with instructions for completion. As participants described the strategies they used
in their classroom, the themes became evident in their responses. All participants used the
strategy of differentiation for their students by offering classwork in different ways. P1
stated, “It really depends on what we are doing. Chromebooks are already assigned to a
seat. When they sit at a seat, they use that Chromebook to access Google Classroom for
their lessons.” P2 stated, “I use Google Slides for note taking. I also use Achieve. The
students can read an article and take a test on a science related topic.” P3 indicated, “I use
different variations. I do different things. A typical unit would be an introductory lab to
explore information, then a lecture and a lab.” P4 affirmed, “we use Google Classroom
with our Google Chromebooks. I use Nearpod, Socrative, and Google Tools.” Participant
181
5 stated, “I show videos and I conduct virtual labs.” The results indicated that the
strategies the teachers used increased the understanding of scientific inquiry skills with
students. The students were able to apply real world tasks, and personalized learning to
better understand science content and skills.
RQ2 results revealed that different technological tools are used to teach scientific
inquiry skills. Middle school science teachers used laptops, tablets, calculators, scales,
stopwatches, triple beam balance scales, rulers, probes, and a variety of other scientific
equipment to teach scientific inquiry skills in the classroom. All technological tools were
noted in the materials section of the lesson plan. P3 stated, “We use temperature probes in
class as well as iPads or Chromebooks.” Software is also an important aspect of
technology that is used in the classroom. The participants prefer to use a file-sharing
software like Google Classroom to disseminate information to students. P1 stated, “I post
all of my lessons and activities online in our Google Classroom. Students log in and
complete the activity.” They also use different online websites. P4 stated, “We use
Nearpod for interactive lessons.”
The participants felt they were competent in their technology knowledge after
they were trained to use different technological tools. Each participant was a part of the
technology cohort at their school and received training to use Google Chromebooks and
Apple iPads. P2 stated, “I first began using technology in 2003 in my first year of
teaching. I was at a technology school and a part of a cohort of teachers who received
training for laptops, and LCD projects to use in class.” P5 stated, “After the technology
training, I felt better about using my iPads with the students. I became better with them.”
182
The results indicated that the teachers were competent using technology to teach and
having students use technology to complete their activities in class. The teachers used
different software programs and a variety of technology to engage student learning. The
teachers all used Google Classroom as an information portal for students and blended
technology into their classroom activities.
RQ3 results revealed that middle school science teachers felt they were competent
in their pedagogical knowledge to use the technological tools and strategies they adopted
to cover content prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic. P5 stated, “before Covid-19, I taught
PBL in the classroom. The students collaborated together on projects and used computers
for research. Now, they are prepared because they have to do it independently at home.”
Participants created effective teaching and learning environments for their students. P1
stated, that “when you give clear instructions, it makes gathering data easier, and helps
with a more cohesive lesson.” The lesson plans listed clear instructions for the students to
complete their assignments. The lesson plans listed the online websites, the tools needed
to complete the work, and the assessment, which the teachers posted in the Google
Classroom. The participants expanded on their content knowledge with lessons that met
the objective and incorporated the use of technology. P4 stated, “Now we create lessons
with exclusive online content because of COVID-19. I make sure students are able to
learn the content 100% with the technology. Everything is now online” The results
indicated that pedagogical knowledge was consistently applied before and during the
COVID-19 Pandemic. The teachers were confident they were using the necessary skills
to engage students with content to increase their knowledge of science.
183
According to the results that emerged from the study in RQ4, some negative
factors related to the use of technological tools and strategies when teaching science in
the middle school classroom were revealed. Middle school science teachers felt too much
technology exposure with students was a negative aspect of technology use. P1, P2, P3,
P4, and P5 all agree that overuse of technology can be “damaging” to student engagement
with technology. P3 and P4 spoke about “using full technology”, and that it can be
difficult to have students engaged at all times. Both participants said it was challenging.
The lesson plans had timing listed for each step of the instruction. The teachers listed
how long a student should spend at each stage of the lesson. P5 spoke about the
challenges keeping student engaged with technology. P5 has been teaching less than five
years and tried to use technology daily despite classroom management concerns. P5
recounted that students “do not want to do the assignments sometimes. They abuse
technology and try to opt-out of work.” The results indicated that technology was useful
but not always easy to engage with students. P5 also stated, “The students can become
less complacent with using technology and are less willing to complete their work with
technology.”
As learning was moved online, another negative factor was that teachers were
unsure about whether students understood the scientific inquiry skills. Students had to use
whatever technological tools they had at home to complete classwork. P1 discussed the
challenges with teaching in an online environment, “students are losing focus. I struggle
with getting them to complete work. Some students are not logging online. There was no
accountability at home for some students.” P2 and P4 agreed, adding, “parents are not
184
holding students accountable.” P3 and P5 discussed a different point of view, recalling
that “parents are not traditional teachers and they have been thrust into the role of
educator with no training on content, technology, or pedagogy. Online learning is not as
efficient as face-to-face.”
Additionally, the results from the research study revealed some positive factors
related to the use of technological tools and strategies when teaching science in the
middle school classroom. All 5 participants agreed that the main positive factor was
“individualized learning for students.” The positive aspect of using technology in the
middle school science classroom was that teachers differentiate with students. The
participants discussed their progress with student learning and technology usage. P4
recalled “being able to gauge a student’s understanding because you are physically
present with them. It was easier to interact and know if a student has grasped the concept
when you can see their face.” P5 acknowledged, “it’s great to use technology as a whole
class and troubleshoot with students as they worked. It was simpler to handle issues with
technology when you have the device in front of you to see the issues.” P3 discussed,
“hands-on strategies with students and being able to demo activities with the students.
Students received immediate feedback on their work effort and skillset.” P2 described a
typical day with students as “picking up their iPad when they come into the classroom.
Students then begin their classwork for the day, which is in the Google Classroom. As
they work, I can circulate around and help them complete their notes, graphing, and
explanations.” P1 articulated the “comfort with being in front of the students as they are
taught. There is a nostalgic feeling of that direct communication when I see my students.”
185
Precoronavirus Pandemic versus Postcoronavirus Pandemic
According to the participants’ perceptions that emerged from the study, student
engagement changed during the coronavirus pandemic (see Table 5). The study
Table 5
Student Engagement with Technology
Participants
Student engagement
before coronavirus
pandemic (%)
Student engagement
during coronavirus
pandemic (%)
P1
90
60
P2
95
75
P3
100
80
P4
100
80
P5
80
70
results presented information that gave an overview of teaching strategies used before the
coronavirus pandemic and after the pandemic happened during the school closures.
Teaching Strategies that were used prior to the pandemic were no longer used. Before the
Pandemic, learning was presented face-to-face with teachers in the classroom with their
students. P5 stated, “Before COVID, we did Project-Based Learning. Students were able
to collaborate on projects together, use the computers for research, and then present to the
class.”
All participants agreed that the pandemic has changed education going forward.
The participants reported that their adjustment to a virtual environment was still ongoing.
186
Before the coronavirus pandemic, all participants noted that technology was not used
daily, but when it was used, students were engaged because the technology was limited in
the classroom. The participants stated that now technology was used daily, and students
may not be as engaged because all learning, in multiple subjects, were online. P3 stated,
Using it every day, they get burned out. I do not use technology every day. I don’t
want my students to take it for granted. Kids crave personal attention. That is hard
because everybody has technology. Daily online learning may be overwhelming
to students.
Discrepant cases existed when P1, P2, P3, and P4 agreed that data collection was
a skill they taught more often than others but, P5 did not. I asked the participants to
elaborate more. P3 stated, “I teach a Pendulum Lab where students use a stopwatch to
collect data by recording the number of swings from the pendulum in 30 seconds.” P2
stated “Gathering data is more easily manipulated with technology.” P5 did not agree and
contradicted their response. P5 stated, that “data collection is not easy for my students.
Research is used more in my classroom to create projects. My students love it.” The
responses revealed the teachers’ have the ability to use technology as an innovative
instructional technique. The differences were centered around their technology use and
objectives to teach.
The data revealed that the participants believed technology was a useful tool to
teach scientific inquiry in the classroom. Participants used strategies such as authentic
learning (online publishing, podcasts and videos) and project-based learning (student
choice, differentiation) to teach. The technology tools that were used consisted of
187
hardware such as Google Chromebooks, Apple iPads, and scientific lab equipment. The
software used was Adobe Flash Player, Google Classroom, and various websites.
Peripherals like a computer mouse and earbuds were available when needed. Teacher
competency revealed that pedagogy was blended with content knowledge to teach
students. The participants were comfortable teaching scientific inquiry skills with
technology, tapping into their extensive knowledge about the subject matter. The positive
factors that arose from using technology to teach scientific inquiry skills were using
specific software, like Google, that offered a suite of products. Digital websites like
YouTube, Vimeo, and educational games like Kahoot were useful to engage students and
offer enrichment to the lesson. The negative factors that were revealed were the use of the
iPads for learning. The iPads were difficult to use with peripherals, like a computer
mouse. Students could also become bored and disengage from technology due to overuse.
Students were able to differentiate the lesson for the students, having the students perform
better. The recent coronavirus pandemic changed this blended approach, and all teaching
and learning became virtual. eLearning or virtual learning increased the amount of
technology use with students, prompting some positive and negative factors. Pedagogy
was essential during this time because classroom management was virtual, and teachers
had to rely on their skills to impart knowledge to students.
Summary
The results of this research study confirmed that middle school science teachers
successfully used different strategies with technology to teach scientific inquiry skills.
Middle school science teachers used Authentic Learning and PBL strategies to teach
188
science in the middle school classroom. The technological tools that middle school
science teachers used to teach scientific inquiry skills were laptops, tablets, calculators,
scales, stopwatches, and a variety of scientific equipment. They prefer to use a filesharing
software like Google Classroom to disseminate information to students on devices like
Google Chromebooks.
The teachers felt they were quite competent in their pedagogical knowledge to use
the technological tools they had been trained to use. They used those tools in the
classroom with science content for optimum learning. They used pedagogical knowledge
to make learning more efficient. They also felt there were positive and negative factors
with using technology in the classroom. The negative factors involved technology
overuse with students, and technology not working properly. The positive factors
involved using technology to differentiate with students, therefore creating a personalized
learning experience.
In Chapter 5, I reiterate the purpose and nature of this research study. I summarize
the key findings of the research study. I describe the findings and how they relate to the
literature. I analyze the findings and share how they relate to TPACK and relevant
literature. The limitations of trustworthiness are described. Recommendations for further
research are made, and implications for positive social change are described. The
methodological implications are described, and recommendations for social change are
given. The chapter ends with a message that captured the essence of the research study.
189
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
This qualitative case study investigated the best practices used by teachers with
technology to teach scientific inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms. While
technology tools have been used, little was known about which devices students learned
from the best or which devices teachers preferred to use.
To reiterate, the research questions were:
RQ 1: What strategies do middle school science teachers adopt when using
technology to teach science in the middle school classroom?
RQ 2: What are the technological tools that middle school science teachers use to
teach scientific inquiry skills, and which of these tools do teachers perceive to be more
meaningful?
RQ 3: Do the teachers feel that they are quite competent in their pedagogical
knowledge to use the technological tools and strategies they adopt to cover the content
that is used in the middle school classroom?
RQ 4: What are the negative and positive factors that are related to their usage of
technological tools and strategies when teaching science in the middle school classroom?
The findings of this qualitative case study confirmed that middle school science
teachers successfully used different strategies with technology to teach scientific inquiry
skills. Middle school science teachers have preferences for specific technologies and
software. Technology can foster a negative attitude for students when it is overused with
students. Technology can foster a positive attitude for students when it is used in different
ways with students.
190
Interpretation of the Findings
The findings related to RQ1 revealed that, in alignment with the literature, middle
school science teachers used different strategies with technology, such as authentic
learning and project-based learning, to teach scientific inquiry skills. For example,
Williams et al., (2017) and Bippert, (2019) confirmed that teachers used real-world,
innovative technological techniques with students to engage them in the curriculum. In
Williams et al.’s, (2017) research, they discussed students (a) using flip camera
technology to make movies about news stories, (b) using search engines like Google, (c)
using presentation software on mini-computers and (d) using tablets to create projects.
Students also used collaborative online tools, like Wallwisher, to share and edit
information (Williams et al., 2017). According to Bippert, (2019), students gained a sense
of ownership and pride in their academics.
The findings of this study confirmed that, to teach, the participants also used
realworld technological techniques, differentiation, and projects. Real-world situations
were discussed daily in their classroom for students to understand the content. Students
used the Internet on Google Chromebooks and Apple iPads to research information for
projects assigned as a group and individually.
The findings from RQ2 contradicted the research. According to Hilton (2016),
Tokmak (2015), and Minshew and Anderson (2015), iPads were used successfully to
teach content to students. In their studies, preloaded apps on the iPads were used mainly
to complete preassigned activities. Students were not allowed to go to websites that were
not assigned. In my research study, however, the participants did not find iPads useful to
191
teach scientific inquiry skills to students. According to the participants, the
iPads’preloaded apps were useful only for teaching science content. The iPads lacked
specific software that was critical for using online simulations and online labs to teach
scientific inquiry skills. This software was found on the Google Chromebooks, but not
the Apple iPads. Unfortunately, there were not enough laptops available for all students to
have one in the school.
In my study, the participants used different hardware like laptops, tablets,
calculators, scales, stopwatches, along with a variety of scientific equipment to teach
scientific inquiry skills. A file-sharing software, Google Classroom, was used by all
participants to post their content, materials needed, and activities for students to
complete. Peripherals like computer mice and headphones were available for use if a
student needed them. According to the study from Tokmak, 2015, laptops were used
successfully in the classroom with students. The teachers used them to design educational
computer games based on their curriculum, and students were able to use the laptops to
complete the educational computer games. In my study, Google Chromebooks were used
by teachers successfully to teach content. The Google Chromebook used specific
software to access interactive websites for learning. They also used Adobe Flash Player
software that enabled more online lab simulations, and software to be accessed at school.
The findings that emerged from RQ3 confirmed teacher competency depends on
their content and pedagogy knowledge. The research of Yuksel, (2019) revealed that
participants used pedagogical knowledge to incorporate technology into their content. It
was noted in their lesson plans, that proper planning and preparation would benefit their
192
teaching. As Padmavathi, (2016) and Tondeur et al., (2016) pointed out, pedagogy
influenced how teachers used technology to teach content. In their studies, teachers had
traditional teacher pedagogy knowledge to integrate technology into their content.
Teachers were responsible for learning their content knowledge, learning the technology,
and using their pedagogy to teach and maintain their classroom. In my study, the
participants also had suitable pedagogical and content knowledge. With this knowledge,
they were able to incorporate technology into their lessons to effectively teach scientific
inquiry skills. They used pedagogy to teach scientific inquiry skills with technology. They
also planned their activities in their lesson plans, listed the needed materials, and
executed their lessons accordingly.
According to the findings that emerged from RQ 4, it was confirmed that negative
and positive factors can arise from technology use in the classroom. Weinthrop et al.,
(2016) discussed how students would no longer engage in different technological
programs when they have mastered it. In my study, student academic performance was
dependent upon the student’s perspective on technology. The participants referred to how
bored the students became with technology. They rushed through their work, to turn off
the technology, thus lowering their academic performance. Another negative factor was
the participants did not have a strong technology learning knowledge base. They attended
one technology training when they first began to use technology in the classroom, but no
additional training was offered afterwards. They lacked the needed support for essential
training to increase their technology knowledge base. Garba et al., (2015) confirmed that
teachers needed training to use different technologies. There was a lack of available
193
technological tools for training, and connectivity issues were problematic. The teachers
were in underprivileged economic, rural areas, and Internet connectivity was not stable.
The teachers were willing to learn but did not have the needed support or capabilities.
There were also some positive factors that emerged from this study that confirmed
the findings in the literature. For example, in the study of McKnight et al., (2016), the
teachers differentiated with technology to teach students. They used word processing
software, emails, and different Internet websites with students. They also used real-time
feedback, such as checking and grading homework as soon as it was submitted, to further
tailor a student’s academic progress. In my study, it was surmised that the participant
teachers were comfortable differentiating instruction and using technology effectively.
The participants differentiated instruction with students by also using technology to teach
students. They assigned online word processing software for students to create
presentations and documents. They also created enrichment opportunities by assigning
different interactive science websites with students.
Since starting this research, the COVID-19 pandemic suddenly changed the way
teachers were teaching, and all learning moved to an online setting for the remainder of
the school year. However, students and teachers were not prepared to move to a virtual
environment. Some teachers, like the participant teachers in this research study, had to
adjust to a 100% virtual environment to teach. Virtual learning increased during the
pandemic. Science requires a hands-on component that is not being achieved during this
time because physical learning is limited (Mineo, 2020). Technology changed from being
194
used as a tool, to becoming the primary mode of teaching and learning for students, as
seen in Table 5 in Chapter 4.
Limitations of the Study
The research study was limited to two schools and five teachers. The study was
initially planned for one school with ten participants. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
volunteers were limited. I only received responses from 3 out of 11 teachers who were
identified and contacted. After receiving permission from my committee members,
another school was contacted for volunteers to participate in the research study. From the
second middle school, I only received 2 out of 8 responses. I again contacted my
committee members for guidance and gained permission to continue with five
participants. Another limitation was the technology used in this research study. Within the
two schools, technology was limited to predominately Apple iPads and Google
Chromebooks. The participants had mixed feelings about using these technological tools
to teach due to the functionality of the tools.
The participants were at home during the teleconference interview. Since this
teleconference interview was in a different state and time zone, I was unable to note body
language and other physical nuisances from the participants. Each participant was in their
own home and could not be influenced from other participants in the study. As a former
science teacher, my personal experience teaching science and using technology did not
impact how the data were reported. I accurately recorded and decoded the data, using a
data collection template to keep all responses orderly and maintained. I kept a reflective
195
journal to avoid blending my thoughts with the responses of the participants and
accurately record them.
Recommendations
Based on the findings that emerged from my study, it would be essential to
conduct more studies with more participants. This research study only had five
participants, and the information derived was limited. The recommendation to conduct
this research study with more participants could deliver more detailed information for the
case study. Having more detailed information could increase the richness of the data,
adding more quotes and viewpoints to the research.
Also, it could be recommended that in future studies, the researchers should
adhere to better ways of collecting data without resorting to online data collection, and
face-to-face interviews must be adopted. Using face-to-face interviews as a data
collection method would offer another facet of data, like body language and other
nuances. This data could offer another layer of information about the participants, like
behavior.
Another recommendation was that more studies should be conducted using a large
group of participants from different backgrounds. Teachers from different backgrounds
may feel differently about using technology to teach and may use different technological
devices other than iPads and Chromebooks. This information could result in cultural,
ethnic, or religious differences about technology use.
Future research may investigate technology as a tool and as a means for
instruction as more schools and instruction go online. The COVID-19 pandemic has been
196
extremely hard for educators. The traditional way of teaching changed overnight when
schools suddenly closed. More research could be conducted about how technology
knowledge would be an important aspect of teacher education and a possible criterion for
certification. Teachers would need to have a more advanced technology knowledge to
teach in a classroom.
Implications for Positive Social Change
This research study contributes information to help teachers learn more about how
to use technology more meaningfully. Teachers gain information about which
technological tools and software are helpful in teaching scientific inquiry skills. This
research study could be shared with other school districts to assist with creating
meaningful science and technology lesson plans and content. On a national scale, the
results of this research study can be shared with the National Common Core Science
Standards website to add as a resource for strategies, technology tools, pedagogy
knowledge, content knowledge, and positive and negative factors utilizing technology to
teach scientific inquiry skills. Sharing the findings of the study with other schools would
help those schools to improve their science instruction, which leads to social change.
Since it was found that teachers had very limited knowledge of some aspects of
technologies that could be used in the classroom, organizing more training camps for the
teachers would lead to more important social changes within the classroom. It is strongly
recommended that more opportunities be provided for teachers to have proper
methodological training so that they are equipped to handle technology more effectively.
197
Technology is at the forefront of education in the 21st century. Technology is used
in public and private schools from K-12 education to colleges and universities. Positive
social change can be achieved when information is shared between teachers, schools, and
school districts. If the strategies and technological tools that are used to teach scientific
inquiry skills are shared, science education will continue to grow exponentially. The use
of various technological tools could lead to investing and sustaining different
technologies by the school. If teachers had access to training to use different types of
technology, they could have the ability to use those technologies to differentiate with
more with students in the classroom. Pedagogy knowledge, content knowledge, and
positive and negative factors are shared with others to show them how to teach scientific
inquiry skills in the middle school classroom.
Teaching practices have altered as teachers continue to adapt to new changes due
to the COVID-19 pandemic. New scientific discoveries happen daily, almost as much as
new technologies are created. As teachers look to their future in the classroom, they want
to know that their contributions to the field of science education matter. They want
support, training, and technology to assist with their best efforts to teach. Technology has
the potential to enhance education and build better relationships between teachers,
students, the community, and the world.
Teachers have expressed differences when using technology in face-to-face
settings in the classroom. Students used less technology in a face-to-face setting because
science was more hands-on. Teachers were able to build strong relationships with
students. Academics were consistent. Social interactions were more prevalent between
198
students. The limitations with technology were not as great because technology was used
as a supporting tool.
Teachers have also expressed the limitations of using technology daily in a virtual
setting. They miss the face-to-face interactions with their students. The virtual
interactions do not allow teachers to build strong relationships with their students.
Students are not growing academically, socially, or behaviorally like they normally would
during a regular school day. The COVID-19 pandemic has truly interrupted the world of
the classroom.
Conclusion
Technology and science are always evolving and changing. This research study
gathered information about technological tools that could be adopted to teach scientific
inquiry skills in middle school science classrooms. Problem Based Learning and
Authentic Learning were two strategies that were used successfully in this research study
to teach scientific inquiry skills. Real-world applications and projects were also used to
teach science in the middle school classroom. The technology used by teachers helped to
create documents, charts, graphs, and solve problems. Google Chromebooks and Apple
iPads were used with students, but Google Chromebooks were preferred based upon
software compatibility with interactive websites. The technology required for teaching
scientific inquiry skills may be different from that for teaching content.
Pedagogy and content knowledge are needed for the successful integration of
technology into the classroom. The teachers knew their content and successfully taught it
while managing students in-person and virtually, thus proving that technology was no
199
longer a tool for enrichment; it was used as a part of everyday teaching and learning
online. One positive aspect of using technology to teach was that learning became
enhanced in the classroom, thus providing collaboration among students and providing
opportunities for authentic and project-based learning. One negative aspect was that
learning could become mechanical and social skills become poor because of technology
overuse, and a lack of social interactions with others.
Teachers are at the forefront of science education. Teaching scientific inquiry
skills is an important part of learning how to navigate the environment. Teachers need
support and access to technology that can jumpstart the workings of young scientific
minds; and teaching with technology can make the difference between a student that
loves science or hates science. This study is essential to the field of science education and
educational technology because the information shared can help science teachers become
efficient at selecting and using preeminent technologies to teach scientific inquiry skills
in the classroom.
References
Aydemir, S., Ugras, M., Cambay, O., & Kilic, A. (2017). Prospective pre-school
teachers’ views on the nature of science and scientific inquiry skills.
Üniversitepark Bülten, (2),74. https://doi-org/
10.22521/unibulletin.2017.62.6
200
Allan, W. C., Erickson, J. L., Brookhouse, P., & Johnson, J. L. (2010). Teacher
professional development through a collaborative curriculum project: An example
of TPACK in Maine. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve
Learning, 54(6), 36-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-010-0452-x
Bang, E., & Luft, J. A. (2013). Secondary science teachers’ use of technology in the
classroom during their first 5 years. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
Education, 29(4), 118- 126. doi:10.1080/21532974.2013.10784715
Baran, E., Bilici, S., Sari, A., & Tondeur, J. (2017). Investigating the impact of teacher
education strategies on preservice teachers’ TPACK. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 2(5), 357-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12565.
Bilici, S. C., Guzey, S. S., & Yamak, H. (2016). Assessing preservice science teachers’
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) through observations and
lesson plans. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(2), 237-251.
doi:10.1080/02635143.2016.1144050
Bippert, K. (2019). Perceptions of technology, curriculum, and reading strategies in one
middle school intervention program. Research in Middle Level Education Online,
42(3), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2019.1565600
Castle, M. A., & Ferreira, M. M. (2015). Middle school science teachers’ perspectives
and practices related to science as inquiry: A case study. Journal of Ethnographic
& Qualitative Research, 10(1), 13–28
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Coronavirus (COVID-19). Retrieved
from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html
201
Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching,
and language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 64-80.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12302
EZ Talks. (2020). Main difference between elearning and classroom learning. Retrieved
from https://www.eztalks.com/elearning/difference-between-elearning-
andclassroom-learning.html
Finger, G., Romeo, G., Lloyd, M., Heck, D., Sweeney, T., Albion, P., & JamiesonProctor,
R. (2015). Developing graduate TPACK capabilities in initial teacher education
programs: Insights from the teaching teachers for the future project. The
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 505-513.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0226-x
Fraser, W. J. (2017). Science teacher educators’ engagement with pedagogical content
knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in predominantly paper-based distance
learning programs. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 35–51.
https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.340375
Foulgeri, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D. A., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017).
Technology educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 25(4), 413-448. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary p/181966/
Garba, S. A., Yusuf, B., & Busthami, A. H. (2015). Toward the use of technology and 21st
century teaching-learning approaches: The trend of development in malaysian
schools within the context of asia pacific. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning, 10(4), 72-79.
202
http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v10i4.4717
Gorman, M. (2018). The samr model of technology integration article. Retrieved from
https://sacsteacher.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/9/1/31918433/the_samr_model_of_te
chnology_integration_article.pdf
Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of
science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25-
45. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/science/article1.cfm.
Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of samr and tpack for reflection on
technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies,
107. 68-73. doi: 10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376
Hughes, A. (2016) Mixed methods research. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/mixed-methods-research.
Jang, S. J., & Tsai, M. F. (2013). Exploring the tpack of taiwanese secondary school
science teachers using a new contextualized tpack model. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 29(4) 566-580. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.282
Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Figg, C. (2015). A case study of a tpack-based approach to teacher
professional development: Teaching science with blogs. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education,15(2), 161-200. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/148462/
Khlaif, Z., Gok, F., & Kouraïchi, B. (2019). How teachers in middle schools design
technology integration activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 78, 141–150
Kihoza, P., Zlotnikova, I., Bada, J., & Kalegele, K. (2016). Classroom ICT integration in
203
Tanzania: Opportunities and challenges from the perspectives of TPACK and
SAMR models. International Journal of Education and Development using
Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 12(1), 107-128.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1099588.pdf
Kirikçilar, R. G., & Yildiz, A. (2018). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK) Craft: Utilization of the TPACK When Designing the GeoGebra
Activities. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 11(1), 101–116. doi: 10.24193/adn.11.1.8
Koi, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Lee, M. H. (2015). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) for pedagogical improvement: Editorial for special issue on
TPACK. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 459-462.
doi:10.1007/s40299-015-0241-6
Krusenvik, L. (2016) Using case studies as a scientific method: Advantages and
disadvantages. Retrieved from
https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1054643/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Lehtinen, A., & Viiri, J. (2017). Guidance provided by teacher and simulation for inquiry-
based learning: A case study. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 26 (2), 193-206. doi:10.1007/s10956-016-9672-y
Liu, D., Wang, Y., Zhang, H., & Yan, B. (2017, December). Study of relationship between
classroom teaching structure and track structure of science teachers in middle
school. Proceedings from The Sixth International Conference of
Educational Innovation through Technology, Osaka, Japan. doi:
10.1109/EITT2017.12
204
Lomask, M., Crismond, D., & Hacker, M. (2018). Using teaching portfolios to revise
curriculum and explore instructional practices of technology and engineering
education teachers. Journal of Technology Education, 29 (2), 54-72
Luthfia, I., & Atun, S. (2018). The influence of technological pedagogical and content
knowledge (tpack) approach on science literacy and social skills. Journal of
Turkish Science Education, 15(3), 27–40. doi:10.12973/tused.10235a
Martin, B. (2015). Successful implementation of tpack in teacher preparation programs.
International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 4(1), 17-26.
doi:10.5121/ijite.2015.4102
McCarthy, K. (2020). The global impact of coronavirus on education. Retrieved from
https://abcnews.go.com/International/global-impact-
coronaviruseducation/story?id=69411738
McKnight, K., O'Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K.
(2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve
student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 194-
211. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856
Minshew, L., & Anderson, J. (2015). Teacher self-efficacy in 1:1 iPad integration in
middle school science and math classrooms. Contemporary Issues in Technology
and Teacher Education, 15(3), 334-367. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/147432/
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
205
Padmavathi, M. (2016). Preparing teachers for technology-based teaching-learning using
TPACK. Journal on School Educational Technology, 12 (3l), 1-9. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1140351.pdf
Pilgrim, J., & Martinez, E. E. (2015). Web literacy and technology integration: Moving
beyond tpack with student-centered instruction. Journal of Literacy and
Technology, 16(2), 122-153. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288258211_Web_literacy_and_technolo
gy_integration_Moving_beyond_TPACK_with_student-centered_instruction
Pöntinen, S., Dillon, P., & Väisänen, P. (2017). Student teachers’ discourse about digital
technologies and transitions between formal and informal learning contexts.
Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 317–335.
doi:10.1007/s10639-015-9450-0
Portnoy, L. (2018). How SAMR and tech can help teachers truly transform assessment.
Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-02-01-how-samr-and-
techcan-help-teachers-truly-transform-assessment
Rahman, S. M. M., Krishnan, V. J., & Kapila, V. (2017, June). Exploring the dynamic
nature of tpack framework in teaching stek9m using robotics in middle school
classrooms. Proceedings from the American Society for Engineering Education
Conference, Columbus, OH. doi: 10.18260/1-2--28336
Romine, W. L., Sadler, T. D., & Wulff, E. P. (2017). Conceptualizing student affect for
science and technology at the middle school level: Development and
implementation of a measure of affect in science and technology (mast). Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 534–545
206
Rosenberg, J. M. & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Content and technological pedagogical content
knowledge (tpack): A systematic review. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 47(3), 186-210. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663
Ruggiero, D., & Mong, C. J. (2015). The teacher technology integration experience:
Practice and reflection in the classroom. Journal of Information Technology
Education Research, 14, 161-178. Retrieved from
http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol14/JITEv14ResearchP161-
178Ruggiero0958.pdf
Rutten, N., van der Veen, J., & van Joolingen, W. (2015). Inquiry-based whole class
teaching with computer simulations in physics. International Journal of Science
Education, 37(8), 1225–1245. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1029033
Ryoo, K. (2015). Teaching science through the language of students in
technologyenhanced instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
24(1), 29-
42. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-014-9518-4
Statistic Solutions. (2019). Sample size. Retrieved from
https://www.statisticssolutions.com/dissertation-consulting-services/sample-
sizepower-analysis/
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In NK Denzin & YS
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 217-285). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications
Tanak, A. (2018). Designing tpack-based course for preparing student teachers to teach
science with technological pedagogical content knowledge. Kasetsart Journal of
207
Social Sciences, 1-7.
https://doiorg.ezp.waldenuligrary.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.07.012
Thanapud, A., Kamyod, C., Chaisricharoen, R., & Yooyatiwong, T. (2018, November).
Development and improvement of scientific experimental skills through
inquirybased learning via digital technology: A case study of grade eight students
in thailand. Proceedings from 2018 Global Wireless Summit. Chiang Rai, Thailand
Tokmak, H. S. (2015). Preservice teachers’ perceptions on tpack development after
designing educational games. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5),
392–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.939611
Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2016).
Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555-575.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
Tyler-Wood, T. L., Cockerham, D., & Johnson, K. R. (2018). Implementing new
technologies in a middle school curriculum: a rural perspective. Smart Learning
Environments, (1), 1. https://doi-org/10.1186/s40561-018-0073-y
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U.
(2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms.
Journal of Science Educational Technology, 25, 127–147. doi: 10.1007/s10956-
015-9581-5
208
Williams, P., Nguyen, N., & Mangan, J. (2017). Using technology to support science
inquiry learning. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 7(1), 26-57. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.234
Young, J. R. (2016). Unpacking tpack in mathematics education research: A systematic
review of meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 2(1),
19-29. doi: 10.12973/ijem.2.1.19
Zoom. (2019). About Zoom. Retrieved from https://zoom.us/abou.t
