J Sci Educ Technol (2017) 26:646–656 DOI 10.1007/s10956-017-9704-2

Embedding Probeware Technology in the Context of Ocean Acidification in Elementary Science Methods Courses Todd I. Ensign 1 & James A. Rye 1 & Melissa J. Luna 1

Published online: 4 August 2017 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Abstract Research indicates that preservice teacher (PT) education programs can positively impact perceptions of scientific probeware use in K-8 environments. Despite the potential of probeware to improve science instruction and student engagement, its use in elementary education has been limited. Sixty-seven PT enrolled across three sections of an elementary science methods course participated in a mixed-methods study through which they utilized probeware in a thematic experience on ocean acidification. One-way repeated measures ANOVA of pre and post survey data measuring subscales of utility, ability, and intent to use probeware demonstrated a statistically significant increase with medium to large effect sizes for all subscales across all sections   p < 0:01; η2p ¼ 0:384; p < 0:001; η2p ¼ 0:517; p < 0:001; η2p ¼ 0:214 . Analysis of reflective journals revealed over 60% felt the multiple capabilities (notably graphing) of probeware make it a useful classroom tool, and almost one-half believed that its use makes science more enjoyable and engaging. Mapping of the unitized data from the journals on the Next Generation Science Standards suggested that probeware use especially engages learners in planning and carrying out investigations and in analyzing and interpreting data. Journals also revealed that despite PT having prior experience with probeware in

* Todd I. Ensign [email protected] James A. Rye [email protected] Melissa J. Luna [email protected] 1

College of Education and Human Services, West Virginia University, Allen Hall, 355 Oakland Street, P.O. Box 6122, Morgantown, WV 26506-6122, USA

science courses, its use in their future elementary classroom is conditional on having a positive experience with probeware in a science methods course. Further, embedding a probeware experience in a unit on ocean acidification provides PT with strategies for addressing climate change and engaging in argument from evidence. Keywords Probeware . Climate change . Ocean acidification . Handheld computers . Elementary . Science methods . Preservice teachers In our increasingly technological society, there are greater pressures on educators to prepare our students for twentyfirst century jobs through student-centered, technologyenabled curriculum. In many states, classroom teachers are evaluated on their ability to effectively use technology with students, but unfortunately, studies have shown that the majority of teachers are not using technology in a studentcentered manner (Keengwe et al. 2008; National Education Association 2008). It is essential that preservice teacher (PT) programs prepare graduates to use technology in pedagogically sound ways. In science education, the hand-held computing revolution has led to increased ease of use and access to data logging probes and sensors, but according to the TEEMSS II report, these tools rarely find their way into K-8th grade classrooms despite the growing number of states that now include their use in standards (Zucker et al. 2008, p. 43). This has led to an emphasis on providing more opportunities for preservice teachers to appropriately use technology themselves throughout teacher preparation programs (Pellegrino et al. 2007; U.S. Department of Education 2002). As educators adapt their lessons to align with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States 2013), probeware is uniquely situated to enhance application of the scientific and engineering practices. By

J Sci Educ Technol (2017) 26:646–656

using probes, students can collect, graph, analyze, and interpret data allowing them to integrate mathematics, computational thinking, and science. The collected data can help students engage in argument using evidence, as well as obtain, evaluate, and communicate information. Since the late 1990s, graphing calculators have been paired with scientific probes, known as calculator-based laboratories, to create an Binquiry-based learning environment, where students are involved in collecting real time data, generating hypotheses, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions^ (Lyublinskaya 2003, p. 164). For the purposes of this study, probeware is defined as a computer with software for data collection and analysis, paired with one or more electronic probes to enhance students’ interpretation of scientific data. For almost two decades, innovative education faculty have been preparing preservice teachers to integrate probeware. Lyublinskaya and Zhou (2008) introduced probeware instruction into one section of an elementary science methods course and did not introduce it in another section. The authors found that longer and more frequent exposure improved preservice teachers’ perspectives toward the use of this technology in their future classrooms, although not necessarily their confidence (p. 163) when comparing the two groups. Rehmat and Bailey (2014) examined how student perceptions and practices of technology integration changed within an elementary science methods course. They found that preservice teachers entered the class with the belief that technology was a tool to help in the administration and efficiency of teaching; however, they did not have a good working knowledge of ways technology could enhance student learning, especially through a constructivist approach. Remhat and Bailey concluded that explicit technology instruction improved their ability to define and apply technology in science instruction, as evidenced by their inclusion of technology tools (e.g., probeware) in their lesson plans (p 753). In our work, we have found that preservice teachers now enter the science methods course with far more personal experiences using technology (including probeware) than their peers possessed 3 to 5 years ago. However, their perception of probeware is not always positive, and some convey that using probeware for instruction would be difficult or even inappropriate at the elementary level.

647

teacher knowledge best illustrated by a Venn diagram showing the interactions between content, pedagogical, and technological teacher knowledge. Rehmat and Bailey (2014) emphasize that BTechnology skill training alone leaves teachers without the knowledge of how to use technology to teach more effectively, disregards the relationship between technology and content knowledge, and does not address curriculum content standards with students while using technology^ (p. 745). In essence, it is not enough to provide training on probeware, without also modeling appropriate pedagogical approaches for its use and combining the training with science content. It is for these reasons that our approach to presenting probeware was to embed it within a unit on ocean acidification, while modeling activities that would be appropriate for elementary classrooms. While TPACK provides a holistic view of the types of knowledge preservice teachers need to realize the full potential of technology integration, it is also essential for them to understand the range of impacts this technology can have on the learning process. The SAMR provides a framework for understanding the range of impacts technology has on learning. The SAMR model refers to four levels of technology integration and educational impact: substitution of a traditional tool with technology, augmentation of the learning process where the technology brings additional tools to the teaching/learning process, modification where the technology changes the way learning is accomplished, and redefinition which describes a completely new pathway for teaching/learning that is available through the use of technology. For effective utilization of probeware, educators need to understand how this technology works, the science underlying the data being collected, and an understanding of how it is best used with students. For the potential of probeware to be realized, educators must also have the desire to use this technology, and it needs to be accessible to their students. This paper explores the perceptions of preservice teachers in an elementary science methods course—before and after a class experience that integrated probeware use with the topic of ocean acidification—on the utility of probeware, their ability to use the tool, and their intent to use this technology in their future classrooms.

Context Conceptual Framework The two most common conceptual frameworks for describing technology integration are Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra and Koehler 2006) and Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition Models (SAMR) (Puentedura 2009). TPACK is a model of

The research reported in this paper was conducted with preservice teachers enrolled in a teacher preparation program at a land-grant institution. The program includes 3 years of practicum, which provides substantial opportunity for the preservice teachers to implement in local schools what they are learning in their university methods

648

courses. Both probeware and climate change have been integrated into the program’s science methods courses for the past 5 years. During the year (2015) in which this study was conducted, additional climate change activities were included to strengthen the scientific content, better addressing the Bcontent^ knowledge present in the TPACK framework. The National Research Council (2012) suggests students should be engaged frequently and actively in the natural world by mimicking the work of scientists using technology to analyze data and argue from evidence. Probeware integration in K-12 classrooms was supported by a multi-year National Science Foundation study that demonstrated students learned more science when using probeware (Trotter 2008). Collecting data using probeware was shown to actively engage students in developing a deeper understanding of the various factors that affect their environment (Adams 2011). Five years ago, when we first made inquiry into preservice teachers’ perceptions about probeware, it was rare that they would indicate any previous exposure to this tool. In comparison, by year 2015, out of 67 students who participated in the science methods course probeware experience, approximately 60 had prior experience using the SPARK Science Learning System (PS- 2008) in college science courses (physics 105, biology 102, chemistry 111), with a fair number using it in at least two prior courses, some using it in three courses, and eight of the students having also used probeware in high school. In prior years, the inclusion of probeware in the methods course was in response to the authors’ desire to provide preservice teachers a broad overview of probeware capabilities and exposure to the numerous measurement sensors. Due to the level of prior knowledge in year 2015 preservice teachers, the authors decided to de-emphasize instruction on the tool in favor of embedding the technology in a thematic lesson focusing on ocean acidification. Our assumption was that given the increasing level of experience, preservice teachers needed less introduction to the tool and would benefit more from using it within the context of a relevant science topic.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of a probeware technology experience in an elementary science methods course on preservice teachers’ perceptions about the value (utility) of this technology, and their ability and desire (intent) to use it. The data was collected through an 18-item pre and post survey and a journal assignment in which the students reflected on the probeware experience in the course. Observations of the instruction that included

J Sci Educ Technol (2017) 26:646–656

spontaneous comments were recorded by a co-author, and these field notes were used to enrich the articulation of instruction in the methods section. The first research question was: Does the probeware experience result in statistically significant (p < 0.05) gains in preservice teachers’ perceptions about the educational utility of the technology, and their ability, and intent to use it? To more completely explain the quantitative analysis, a qualitative analysis of the student journal entries was conducted to identify emergent themes of preservice teachers’ perceptions. The journal entries were coded and inductive and frequency analyses were completed to determine the efficacy of probeware use by the preservice teachers. The second research question was: What themes emerge among preservice teachers with or without prior probeware experience and what assertions can be made about the usefulness of this instructional approach to introduce probeware? A retrospective research question emerged comparing the survey data from preservice teachers who completed the probeware experience in 2011, 2013, and 2015: Is there a statistically significant difference between the three cohorts (2011, 2013, 2015) in the pre- and post survey data overall and on the subscales (ability, utility and intent)? This question is particularly relevant because the model for instruction used in this study (year 2015) was modified in comparison to prior years.

Methods The research protocol for this study was marked as Exemption status by the university’s Office on Research Compliance; the authors of this paper are the investigators. The research took place at a land-grant university in the Mid-Atlantic region of the USA. Participants Sixty-seven (67) preservice teachers were the participants in this study, all of whom were enrolled during Spring, 2015, across three sections of a 3-credit elementary science methods course. The demographics for the preservice teachers was approximately the same as in the methods course offerings during prior years (about 95% Caucasian, female, undergraduate seniors), with the exception that a few participants were second semester juniors in year 2015. Almost all preservice teachers were enrolled in a 5-year Master of Arts in elementary education program. Instruction The co-authors of this paper were the instructors of the elementary science methods course, while the lead author

J Sci Educ Technol (2017) 26:646–656

provided the classroom experience in all sections as a guest lecturer. The experience followed a learning cycle model of science instruction as has been set forth by Bybee et al. (2006). The 5E model includes five phases. Engagement serves to activate prior knowledge and make connections to the key concept(s), and Exploration provides students a common opportunity to explore the concept(s). Explanation allows the teacher and student to explain and develop further their understanding of the concept(s) while Elaboration provides new experiences to apply the concept(s). Evaluation encourages students and teachers to assess understanding (Bybee et al. 2006). Engagement As the preservice teachers entered the classroom, they were handed a clamshell and asked to examine and name it. A demonstration—surrounded by preservice teachers’ predictions and observations—ensued of how the pH of tap water changes when it is carbonated. We used a SodaStream (https://www.sodastreamusa.com/) and measured pH change with the SPARK Learning System. The preservice teachers generally were divided as to whether or not the pH would increase or decrease with the addition of CO 2 to the water, thus many were surprised when the pH dropped from 7.6 to 5.6. One preservice teacher instantly made the connection between their Bpet clamshell^ and ocean acidification: BShelly does not like acid. It will hurt her shell!^ Exploration We polled the preservice teachers to see how many of them had seen the actual scientific data showing the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1959, and only one in all three sections raised her hand. The class completed an activity graphing a portion of the Mona Loa monthly CO 2 data (Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 2015), which concluded with connecting their graphs together on a wall to form one long chronological data set from 1959 to 2011. We informed them that the preindustrial level was 280 ppm, and it was a powerful moment when they saw that not only did their small segment show both seasonal fluctuations and a small increase but collectively they observed an undisputable pattern of ever increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. In explaining why we observed monthly fluctuations, one preservice teacher correctly stated, BIt is due to the increase in leaves and photosynthesis in summer.^ Using the SPARK, the preservice teachers conducted an experiment in which they measured the change in pH

649

as a result of blowing bubbles through a straw for several minutes into cups of tap water. They were encouraged to use a graph-prediction feature of the SPARK prior to collecting data. When asked about their prediction, one preservice teacher remarked, BWe thought it would become more acidic because we added carbonation, we breathed out CO2.^ Explanation Because the class topic dealt with pH, and we expected a significant proportion would not understand the implications of a change on the logarithmic scale, we assigned a pre-class reading of acids and bases, Chemistry for Kids: Acids and Bases (Nelson 2015). We explained the scale is not linear, and a small drop from pH 8.2 to 8.1 would represent a 30% increase in acidity (hydrogen ion), and a drop of 1.0 (10 fold increase in the hydrogen ion) approaches a 1000% increase in acidity. Our observed drop from 7.6 to 5.6 represents a 100-fold increase in the hydrogen ion and an even more pronounced exponential increase in acidity. This was surprising and several preservice teachers used that information to explain observed changes in pH during the subsequent class activities. Listening to a recorded interview with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) experts (Freely 2015) reinforced what they just learned and connected the problem to man-made CO 2. This was followed with an animation showing the CO2 data they just plotted with the addition of global data points using ice core analyses going back 800,000 years (NOAA 2014). When our current pattern is placed in such a long-term context, it becomes more obvious that our current atmospheric CO2 levels are well above anything Earth has experienced as far back as we can measure (Kunzig 2013). Elaboration Preservice teachers were asked to design an experiment they could teach to elementary students that would explain how ocean acidification may affect their pet shells, BShelly^ or BSheldon.^ All three sections suggested placing their shells into various pH solutions—derived from common household items—such as distilled water, baking soda solution, and vinegar. Based on a discussion of the environment in which clams currently live, the preservice teachers agreed to create a simulated ocean water with a pH of 8.1 as the control solution, and to use the mildly acidic water they created in the earlier experiment, and

650

vinegar as their modified (test) solutions. Each student group recorded the mass of their shells before placing them in the solutions and predicted what would happen to the mass of their shells after 24 h. The groups’ predictions were relatively consistent across the sections and suggested that, BIn the sea water, Shelly will gain mass… and in the vinegar Shelly will dissolve.^ The results over a 24-h period were no loss to a gain of mass in the Bsea water,^ no loss of mass in the mildly acidic solution, and a decrease of half or more of the mass in the vinegar. Evaluation The homework assignment for the preservice teachers was to write a journal entry about their class experience with the probeware technology and a description of a brief lesson in which they would engage their future students in the science and engineering practice of BArguing from Evidence.^ The intent was for the PT to assess their own understanding of the experience and their ability to apply the technology to a new situation in their future classroom.

Data Collection and Analysis The data sources were quantitative and qualitative. They included a pre and post survey (Appendix 1) of preservice teachers’ perceptions about probeware for instruction, a reflective journal entry on the in-class probeware experience, and observational field notes by one of the authors. The survey was completed by 67 preservice teachers across all three sections. The survey was adapted with permission from Gado et al. (2006), who reported that it was cross-validated by the authors. Gado et al. do not describe their cross-validation process or related statistics. However, we did establish that the 18-item instrument had an acceptable level of reliability (Cronbach alpha ≥0.7; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996) based on the survey data collected from PT (n = 60) in year 2011— the year that the probeware was first integrated with the science methods course. For the entire instrument and each of the three subscales—utility, ability, intent— Cronbach alpha levels for the pre and post data were, respectively, 0.891, 0.739, 0.721, 0.800; and 0.930, 0.847, 0.799, 0.840. Due to the nature of the journal entry assignment in this course (i.e., students could choose to skip one entry per semester), the journal entry data included 46 of the 67 students as 21 opted to not submit an entry in the week

J Sci Educ Technol (2017) 26:646–656

these were collected. The 46 journal entries underwent content analysis: the data were coded and inductive and frequency analyses were completed. Two forms of triangulation were employed: analyst (first and second authors) for the qualitative data, and method (survey and reflective journals). Prior to administration of the survey, the preservice teachers were apprised by the instructor of what constitutes Bprobeware technology.^ The survey also contained a brief explanation (a handheld computer connected to probeware) as part of the instructions for completing it. The 18 statements on the survey targeted preservice teachers’ perceptions about the utility of this technology as well as their ability to use the technology, and their intent to use it in their own teaching. The survey employed a Likert-type scale (five possible responses) that ranged from Bstrongly disagree^ to Bstrongly agree.^ The survey concluded by soliciting respondents’ suggestions on ways to improve the probeware technology experience in the course. The investigators were not present during data collection, and the preservice teachers were informed that their responses would be anonymous. Survey responses for each subject were entered into Microsoft Excel (v. 14.5.9) as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, where 1 = the least desirable and 5 = the most desirable response. For example, a Bstrongly agree^ response to survey item 3 BSomeday, I will use probeware technology in my classroom^ was coded 5 (and strongly disagree was coded 1). A Bstrongly agree^ response to survey item 10 BI think that integrating probeware technology with teaching would take too much time^ was coded 1 (and Bstrongly disagree^ was coded 5). Using Microsoft Excel, the data were averaged and the means for each student, section, and sub-measure were entered into IBM’s Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS v. 22) to ascertain if there were statistically significant increases in the mean of responses to all (18) items as well the mean to subsets of the items that were intended to measure perceptions about utility (items 1, 5, 15, 17, 18), ability to use (items 2, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16), and intent to use probeware technology (items 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12). Our primary research question was: Does the probeware experience result in statistically significant (p < 0.05) gains in preservice teachers’ perceptions about the educational utility of the technology and their ability and intent to use it? To answer this question, we applied one-way ANOVA with repeated measures to the pre and post survey data. One-way repeated measures ANOVA is an appropriate statistical test to perform when comparing the same group(s) on a parameter (dependent variable) at two or

J Sci Educ Technol (2017) 26:646–656

more points in time (independent variables), provided that the study design and population meet specified assumptions (Laerd Statistics 2013). The test was performed three times, once for each dependent variable (subscale) measure: perceptions about the utility of the probeware, ability to use the probeware, and intent to use the probeware. The second research question was: What themes emerge in the journal entries among the preservice teachers with or without prior experience and what assertions can be made about the usefulness of this instructional approach to introduce probeware? To answer this question, content analysis was applied to the reflective journal entries. According to the well-established techniques of grounded theory (Charmaz 2008), the entries were analyzed inductively through open coding to generate the codes and respective categories (Fraenkel et al. 2015). Data were reduced by collapsing similar categories and through the formation of themes. A quantitative rule was established to determine when a category became a theme: A theme had to represent more than 20% of the preservice teachers who completed the journal entry. Analyst triangulation was employed in an attempt to increase the trustworthiness of the findings (Patton 2002). The first and second author, indep e n d e n t l y, c o m p l e t e d t h e i n d u c t i v e a n a l y s i s . Subsequently, the two researchers compared and discussed their emergent categories, noted categories that emerged with a much greater frequency for one but not the other researcher, and independently reanalyzed the data using code definitions (closed coding) in order to ascertain if there was greater agreement between the researchers. The retrospective research question sought to compare survey data from cohorts of preservice teachers who completed probeware instruction in years 2011 and 2013 with the current cohort (2015). This question arose because we discovered during our study that many preservice teachers comprising the 2015 cohort had used probeware in their previous science course(s) whereas most preservice teachers in the prior cohorts had no prior exposure. Accordingly, we were especially interested in any statistically significant differences in the Bpre^ perceptions they had prior to the methods in-class probeware experience. To answer this question, we carried out six one-way ANOVA tests. For each test, cohort (year 2011, 2013, 2015) was the independent variable. The dependent variable was different for each test: pre ability, pre utility, pre intent, post ability, post utility, and post intent. As with one-way ANOVA repeated measures, the assumption of normality of the dependent variable measures was verified through the Shapiro-Wilk test on the data for the 2011 and 2013 cohorts.

651

Results Sixty-seven preservice teachers across all three sections (year 2015) completed the pre- or post-survey. However, data analysis is based on only the 55 preservice teachers who (a) completed both the pre and post surveys, (b) did not omit more than 3 of the 18 questions, and (c) did not omit more than one question for any subscale. All questions were analyzed for invalid answers as defined by the preservice teacher responding exactly the same for all questions. These rules also were applied to data for the years 2011 and 2013 cohorts of preservice teachers.

Research Question One Analysis of the pre to post survey means for all three sections combined in 2015 confirmed that the probeware experience resulted in significantly higher preservice teachers’ perceptions of utility (p < 0.001), ability (p < 0.001), and intent (p < 0.001). These differences were associated with medium to large effect sizes as signified by partial Eta Squared: η p2 = 0.384, 0.517, and 0.214, respectively (see Table 1). The Shapiro-Wilk test did reveal that there was a violation of the normality assumption on the post-survey (but not the pre-survey) data for each of the subscales. However, one-way repeated measures can withstand some violation to normality (Laerd Statistics 2013). Connected to normality, the Explore feature of SPSS revealed some outliers, more for the post than the pre. However, in general, the outliers either counterbalanced each other (e.g., 1 on the high and 1 on the low end of the ability scale) or removal of them would have increased the post mean (e.g., removal of four outliers on the low and no outliers on the high end of the utility scale). Cronbach alpha values reaffirmed that the instrument had an acceptable level (≥0.7) of reliability and revealed most often that the items on the full instrument and subscales had high levels (≥0.8) of internal consistency: subscales were 0.737, 0.737, 0.838, and full instrument 0.891 for pre-survey; respective post-survey values were 0.793, 0.807, 0.844, and 0.921. Research Question Two Forty-six (46) of the preservice teachers completed the journal entry and of those, 26 (57%) indicated they had prior experience using probeware in high school or in undergraduate courses. While the researchers expected to find that the preservice teachers with prior experience would be far more aware of the probeware functionality and indicate little gains in understanding of the tool, the converse emerged. One preservice teacher reflected,

652 Table 1

J Sci Educ Technol (2017) 26:646–656 2011, 2013, 2015 pre/post for three subscales using one-way ANOVA with repeated measures

Survey item

Mpre*

Mpost*

Partial Eta squared

Significant at

2015 Utility

3.585

4.076

0.384

[F = (1, 54) = 33.658, p < 0.001]

2015 Ability

3.119

3.851

0.517

[F = (1, 54) = 57.750, p < 0.001]

2015 Intent 2015 Overall

3.574 3.425

3.831 3.905

0.214 0.459

[F = (1, 54) = 14.722, p < 0.001] [F = (1, 54) = 45.866, p < 0.001]

2013 Utility 2013 Ability

3.565 3.037

4.175 3.899

0.585 0.578

[F = (1, 57) = 80.290, p < 0.001] [F = (1, 57) = 77.988, p < 0.001]

2013 Intent

3.496

3.907

0.504

[F = (1, 57) = 57.884, p < 0.001]

2013 Overall 2011 Utility

3.385 3.421

3.979 4.183

0.677 0.620

[F = (1, 57) = 119.655, p < 0.001] [F = (1, 57) = 92.857, p < 0.001]

2011 Ability 2011 Intent

3.086 3.586

3.925 3.939

0.695 0.307

[F = (1, 57) = 130.120, p < 0.001] [F = (1, 57) = 25.294, p < 0.001]

2011 Overall

3.374

4.002

0.636

[F = (1, 57) = 99.545, p < 0.001]

*One-way analysis of variance comparing years 2011, 2013, and 2015 yielded no statistically significant difference across the pre-survey means (Mpre) or post-survey means (Mpost) for any of the subscales

Our session with the Probeware was very enlightening. Even though I used them in high school I hadn’t realized how much they could do. I only used them to measure temperature and CO2 levels, so I had no idea it was capable of checking pH levels or any of the other things we talked about (Student 150405) Approximately 54% of preservice teachers indicated their prior experience was problematic or limited whereas only about 20% described prior experience as positive or enjoyable. In contrast, over 75% indicated that this science methods course experience enhanced their understanding of the capabilities and that the experience was worthwhile (Table 2). Another preservice teacher reflected: From the activity we completed in class with the probeware technology, I was surprised by how unfamiliar I truly was with the technology and how it could be used. During my freshman year of college we used the probeware so I thought I was at least mostly literate with how to use them and the different things for which they could be used. Again, I was very wrong. The only uses I knew for them was to measure and graph temperature and pH of a substance. I had never considered using them as a way to make predictions and I had no idea you could program entire guided lessons into them. (Student 150222) Five themes—categories representing more than 20% of the journal entries—emerged from the preservice teachers’ reflections (Table 2). Their reflections indicated that probeware technology is a vehicle through which multiple

pedagogies can be applied (24%) and that the graphing capability of probeware technology adds considerably to its utility (41%). One preservice teacher reported: It was incredibly useful and convenient to have the data already plotted in a graph. When I conduct experiments and then I have to insert data in a graph, I get frustrated. I typically spend so much time attempting to make a graph that I barely get a chance to analyze the results or explain what the trends in data meant. (Student 150201)

Sixty-one percent (61%) stated the multiple capabilities of probeware technology make it a useful classroom tool, and 48% indicated that using probeware technology makes doing science more enjoyable and engaging. For example, one preservice teacher said, BWorking in class with the probeware technology was a fun experience and, as preservice teachers, it is important for us to have hands-on experience with technology that is similar to what we will be using with our future students^ (Student 150213). Forty-six percent (46%) indicated they want or plan to use probeware in the future: BI would feel much more comfortable using the Sparks in my classroom after working with them in our class. I definitely felt that I would be able to show my students how to use them properly.^ (Student 150310). Although in the minority, some preservice teachers expressed uncertainty using the tool with young learners: BI’m not sure how I would implement this into early childhood classrooms. That would be one of my questions. With guidance and help, could early childhood classrooms use this

J Sci Educ Technol (2017) 26:646–656 Table 2

653

Analysis of EDUC 440 preservice teacher (PT) reflections on probeware experience spring 2015 Sec 02

Completed reflection

Sec 03

Sec 04

Total

N = 17

N = 13

N = 16

N = 46

#

#

#

#

%

%

%

%

Used probeware in previous courses Previous experience problematic or limited

11 65% 6 46% 4 36% 4 67%

9 6

56% 26 57% 67% 14 54%

Previous experience positive or enjoyable EDUC 440 experience enhanced prior users understandings of probeware capabilities

4 9

36% 1 17% 82% 4 67%

1 7

11% 6 23% 78% 20 77%

EDUC 440 experience was worthwhile for prior users

10 91% 4 67%

6

67% 20 77%

Categories emergent from all reflections Classroom access to probeware is the greatest perceived barrier to future use of this technology by PT

2

12% 4 31%

1

6%

7

15%

Probeware can help students make predictions or argue from evidence Training is important/desired for effective use of probeware

3 2

18% 1 8% 12% 3 23%

5 0

31% 0%

9 5

20% 11%

Young age of learner represents a barrier to use of probeware technology by PT

1

6%

2 15%

6

38%

9

20%

5

31%

11

24%

Themes emergent from all reflections Probeware technology is a vehicle through which PT can apply a variety of pedagogies

4

24% 2 15%

The graphing capability of probeware technology adds considerably to its utility The multiple capabilities of probeware technology make it a useful classroom tool

7 9

41% 5 38% 7 44% 19 41% 53% 7 54% 12 75% 28 61%

Using probeware technology makes doing science enjoyable and engaging

8

47% 4 31% 10 63% 22 48%

Want or plan to use probeware in future

7

41% 5 38%

technology? Would students benefit from it?^ (Student 15044). It also appeared that which audience the preservice teachers considered using probeware with impacted their intent. As one preservice teacher stated: I do not believe you can effectively use this technology with preschool as a student run activity. The only way that you would be able to incorporate these devices in the early child environment is if you were to sit with the students and the device while allowing the students to only visually observe or place the probeware into a substance. (Student 150416) Given the current movement toward national science standards, namely the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), the authors mapped the student reflections on the NGSS Science and Engineering Practices (SEP). The mapping was performed on unitized data that was used to establish categories and themes. The SEP that surfaced most often were Planning and Carrying Out Investigations (n = 25) including predicting, collecting data, and observing; and Analyzing and Interpreting Data (n = 17), chiefly graphing.

9

56% 21 46%

homogeneity of variance across groups revealed no violation (p ranged from 0.137 to 0.986). As with the year 2015 data discussed previously, the Shapiro-Wilk test and the Explore function of SPSS revealed violations of the normality assumption and outliers (more for the pre than the post) for the years 2013 and 2011 data. Since the normality data was violated for both the pre and post values of the 2013 data, we also ran the Welch non-parametric alternative to one-way ANOVA. The results of the Welch test also revealed that there were no statistically significant differences across groups for any of the pre subscale or post subscale means (p ranged from 0.223 to 0.786). Accordingly, although the year 2013 and (even more so) 2015 cohorts had more prior exposure to the probeware than did the 2011 cohort, that experience did not translate to more positive pre-survey perceptions about the utility of the probeware and their ability and intent to use it. The cohorts with prior experience also did not have more positive postperceptions as evidenced by the lack of any statistically significant differences across the 2011, 2013, and 2015 post survey means. However, some preservice teachers who remarked in their journals that they had prior experience with the probeware gave evidence that the science methods experience changed their perceptions from less to more positive.

Retrospective Research Question One-way ANOVA comparing years (groups) 2011, 2013, and 2015 on the pre subscale means and on the post subscale means (see Table 1) yielded no statistically significant differences (p ranged from 0.234 to 0.742). Levene’s test for

Discussion and Conclusions It is clear that the probeware classroom experience did positively impact preservice teachers’ perceptions about the value

654

of the technology as well as their ability and intent to use it, and from their perspective, enhanced their TPACK with regards to utilizing probeware to provide inquiry-based instruction for students. Additionally, the PT gained experience using probeware through at least two levels of the SAMR model by measuring pH and temperature directly and graphing the data. The data shows that the instruction produced a statistically significant positive change in all sub-measures for all 3 years. Modifying the method of instruction for year 2015 to focus on ocean acidification rather than the probeware tools directly (years 2011 and 2013) still resulted in statistically significant gains. Despite the authors’ perception that preservice teachers in year 2015 needed less direct instruction on the technology due to their increased prior experience in other courses, the qualitative analysis demonstrated that the probeware experience in the science methods course may be a condition for a substantial portion of the preservice teachers to use the technology in their future elementary classrooms. The qualitative analysis allowed the researchers to triangulate on intent to use probeware. The emergent themes indicated that for over 40% of the preservice teachers who completed reflections, the probeware experience is critical to changing negative perceptions of probeware technology and to providing an enhanced understanding of its educational capabilities. The mean pre to post increase, although statistically significant, was smallest for preservice teachers’ intent to use the technology. Although there were few comments made by preservice teachers on the post survey, those that were provided strongly suggested that more time/ experiences with the technology is warranted. Science methods faculty can collaborate strategically with faculty in the natural sciences as well as mathematics education toward incorporating the use of this technology into other courses that preservice teachers take. Additionally, science methods faculty can integrate the use of probeware with other classroom experiences, such as garden-based learning (e.g., soil pH and moisture) and learning cycle units. Further reinforcement of the technology could be achieved if preservice teachers are encouraged to provide peer-to-peer professional development on probeware use. The study has several weaknesses which, if addressed, could improve the validity of our conclusions. Several preservice teachers commented on the pre survey that they were not familiar with probeware technology, despite the course instructors briefly explaining what constitutes the technology and a description being included in the survey instructions. The instructors could have provided a more in-depth explanation immediately prior to the administration of the survey, which may have resulted in more informed responses on the pre survey. Several preservice

J Sci Educ Technol (2017) 26:646–656

teachers also commented in their journals that they did not feel the technology was appropriate for prekindergarten and early-childhood settings. The instructors could have specifically addressed different instructional techniques based on age of the learner that may have helped some preservice teachers with regard to their intent to use the technology. The study also did not have a control group because it was a component of a required methods course. A comparison to preservice teachers not engaged in the probeware experience may further validate effects of the intervention. With respect to the NGSS, using the probeware aligns with the Science and Engineering Practices of planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, using mathematical and computational thinking, and obtaining and communicating information. Combining probeware with climate change impacts such as ocean acidification allows future educators to target specific NGSS performance expectations that address Earth and Human Activity (4-ESS3) as well as the formation of carbonic acid tied to CO2 (5-PSI-4). However, we believe that instructors need to be more explicit on how the probeware can facilitate arguing from evidence, given that probeware is used to generate data that students can use as direct and observable evidence. Additionally, the implementation of probeware in the K-5 classroom enables educators to improve their students’ technological competence and meet International Society for Technology in Education standards (Gado et al. 2006). Finally, future use of probeware with K-5 preservice teachers can be enhanced through increased curricular connections to both science and language arts by leveraging resources such as Elementary GLOBE’s new storybook and learning activities, BWhat in the World is Happening to Our Climate^ (Hatherway et al. 2017). Also, due to the rapid increase of handheld tablets in elementary classrooms (Koetsier 2013) combined with the bring-your-own-device movement, future probeware experiences need to shift to the use of the data analysis software on these familiar platforms over the proprietary handheld devices. The additional benefit of shifting to tablets or smart phones is the increased comfort with the user interface almost all preservice teachers and students will have, compared to the specialized operating system on the proprietary devices, because they already own or use iOS or Android on their own phone or tablet.

Acknowledgements An earlier version of this paper was presented on October 23, 2015 at the Mid-Atlantic Association for Science Teacher Education annual meeting. We thank the staff of the West Virginia University Program Evaluation and Research Center for their assistance with statistical analysis.

J Sci Educ Technol (2017) 26:646–656

655

Appendix Table 3

Survey about probeware technology for instruction

Statement

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Not Sure

Agree

Strongly Agree

1 Probeware technology sounds like problematic instructional technology to me. 2. I don’t know how to use probeware technology (i.e., probeware technology is unfamiliar to me). 3. Someday, I will use probeware technology in my classroom. 4. If given the opportunity, I would like to learn to use probeware technology for instructional activities. 5. Children should be introduced to probeware technology in elementary school 6. I am confident that I could learn how to use probeware technology. 7. The challenge of using probeware technology for instruction does not appeal to me. 8. I will hesitate to use probeware technology for fear of making mistakes I cannot correct. 9. I am unsure of my ability to integrate probeware technology in my classes. 10. I will do as little work with probeware technology as possible. 11. I think that integrating probeware technology with teaching would take too much time. 12. I am willing to spend time setting up probeware technology for instruction. 13. I am sure I could do instructional activities with probeware technology. 14. I would feel at ease using probeware technology in my classes. 15. I think working with probeware technology in class would be enjoyable and stimulating. 16. I think using probeware technology in class would be very hard for me. 17. Probeware technology can create more learning opportunities for students. 18. Probeware technology is a valuable educational tool. Acknowledgement: Adapted with Permission from Appendix C in Gado et al. (2006), Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14 (3), 501–529. QUESTION: On the back side of this survey, please provide suggestions/ideas for improving the probeware technology experiences in this course.

656

References Adams LG (2011) Engaging middle school students with technology: using real-time data to test predictions in aquatic ecosystems. Science Scope 34(9):32–38 Bybee R, Taylor J, April Gardner A, Van Scotter P, Powell J, Westbrook A, and Landes N, (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. BSCS, Colorado Springs Charmaz K (2008) Grounded theory as an emergent method. In: HesseBiber SN, Leavy P (eds) Handbook of emergent methods. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 155–172 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2015). Carbon Through the Seasons Retrieved from: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/ documents/carbon-through-the-seasons.pdf Fraenkel J, Wallen N, Hyun H (2015) How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill Education, New York Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D (1996) Research methods in the social sciences. St. Martin's Press, New York Freely R. (2015) Ocean acidification part 1: what is ocean acidification?. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.pmel.noaa. gov/co2/story/Sea+Grant+Interviews+with+Richard+Feely Gado I, Ferguson R, van’t Hooft M (2006) Using handheld-computers and probeware in a science methods course: preservice teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy. J Technol Teach Educ 14(3):501–529 Hatherway B, Stanitski D, GLOBE Program (U.S.), National Science Foundation (U.S.), United States., & United States (2017) Elementary GLOBE: K-4 earth system science unit. University Corp. for Atmospheric Research, Washington, D.C. Keengwe J, Onchwari G, Wachira P (2008) Computer technology integration and student learning: barriers and promise. J Sci Educ Technol 17:560–565 Koetsier J. (2013). Apple’s record quarter in education: iPad has 94% of tablet market Retrieved from http://venturebeat.com/2013/10/28/ apples-record-quarter-in-education-ipad-has-94-of-tablet-market/ Kunzig, R (2013). Climate milestone: Earth’s CO2 level passes 400 ppm. N a t i o n a l G e o g r a p h i c N e w s . Av a i l a b l e : h t t p : / / n e w s . nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2milestone-400-ppm Laerd Statistics (2013) ANOVA with repeated measures using SPSS statistics. Lund Research Ltd. Accessed 2/8/17 at https://statistics.laerd. com/spss-tutorials/one-way-manova-using-spss-statistics.php Lyublinskaya I (2003) Connecting mathematics with science: experiments for precalculus. Key Curriculum Press, Emeryville

J Sci Educ Technol (2017) 26:646–656 Lyublinskaya I, Zhou G (2008) Integrating graphing calculators and probeware into science methods courses: impacts on preservice elementary teachers’ confidence and perspectives on technology for learning and teaching. J Comput Math Sci Teach 27(2):163–182 Mishra, Koehler (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec 108(6):1017–1054 National Education Association (2008) Technology in schools: the ongoing challenge of access, adequacy, and equity (Policy brief # 19). NEA Policy and Practice Department, Washington, DC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2014) [Video of carbon dioxide emissions for past 800,000 years]. Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov//products/carbontracker/ co2/CT2011/movies/pumphandle_2014.mp4 National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC Nelson K (2015) Kids science: acids and bases. Ducksters. Retrieved from http://www.ducksters.com/science/acids_and_bases.php NGSS Lead States (2013) Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. National Academies Press, Washington, DC www. nextgenscience.org/next-generation-sciencestandards Patton (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Pellegrino J, Goldman S, Bertenthal M, Lawless K (2007) Teacher education and technology: initial results from the BWhat Works and Why^ project. Yearb Nat Soc Study Educ 106(2):52–86 Puentedura R (2009) As We May Teach: Educational Technology, From Theory Into Practice. [Online image]. Retrieved April 17, 2016 from: http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2015/10/SAMR_ ABriefIntro.pdf (Image licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share alike 3.0 License.) Rehmat A, Bailey J (2014) Technology integration in a science classroom: preservice teachers’ perceptions. J Sci Educ Technol 23(6): 744–755 SPARK Science Learning System (PS (2008) computer and probeware. PASCO, Roseville Trotter, A (2008) ‘Probeware’ on increase in schools’ science labs. Education Week, Vol. 27 (Issue 29). Retrieved from: http:// www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/03/26/29tech_ep.h27.html U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (2002) Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology program (PT3). Retrieved from http:// www.ed.gov/teachtech/about.htm Zucker A, Tinker R, Staudt C, Mansfield A, Metcalf S (2008) Learning science in grades 3–8 using probeware and computers: findings from TEEMSS II project. J Sci Educ Technol 17(1):42–48