Advertisement

Web 1.0 and Web 2.0: An Anglo-Portuguese Research Project on the Impact of Using Technology in Science Education Programmes

  • Lúcia Pombo
  • Cecília Guerra
  • António Moreira
  • Leigh Hoath
  • Dave Howard
  • Malcolm Smith
Chapter

Abstract

This paper will focus on some valuable insights related to the impact of Science Education programmes, which use innovative methodologies for the professional development of student teachers and in-service primary teachers, within the classroom. The work is part of an Anglo-Portuguese research project, involving the University of Aveiro (UA) in Portugal and Bradford College University Centre (BC) in UK. The design of innovative teacher education methodologies that were implemented in the two institutions included the use of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 tools. The team collaboratively identified quality evaluation criteria of teaching practices and defined the evaluation criteria: (1) effective teaching; (2) impact on learning; and (3) suggestions for improving future versions of the curricula. The data were collected using a questionnaire and interviews with student teachers and in-service primary teachers (BC and UA respectively), in both Higher Education contexts. The main findings highlight the importance of giving teachers opportunities to use Web technologies in Science Education programmes so that they feel more confident in applying them in their practice.

Keywords

Science Teaching Student Teacher Teacher Education Programme Primary Teacher Virtual Learn Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arnold, S. R., Padilla, M. J., & Tunhikorn, B. (2009). The development of pre-service science teachers’ professional knowledge in utilizing ICT to support professional lives. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(2), 91–101.Google Scholar
  2. Costa, F. A. (2008). A utilização das TIC em contexto educativo. Representações e práticas de professores. Lisboa: Tese não publicada, Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
  3. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Department for Education and Skills. (2004). Key Stage 3. National Strategy ICT across the curriculum. ICT in science ICT across the curriculum (ICTAC) pack: Creating opportunity, releasing potential, achieving excellence.Google Scholar
  5. González, J., & Wagenaar, R. (2008). Universitie’s contributions to the Bologna Process. An Introduction (2ed.). Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.Google Scholar
  6. Graham, C.R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., Clair, L.S., & Harris, R. (2010). TPACK Development in Science Teaching: Measuring the TPACK Confidence of Inservice Science Teachers. TechTrends 53.Google Scholar
  7. Guerra, C., Moreira, A., & Vieira, R. (2010). Towards the definition of a teacher education program for the use of ICT tools in science teaching and learning. In B. Lazar & R. Reinhardt (Eds.), XIV IOSTE—International organization for science and technology education. Bled (Eslovenia): IOSTE Press.Google Scholar
  8. Guerra, C., Pombo, L., & Moreira, A. (2011). Innovative technologies in science teaching. Primary Science, 120, 26–28.Google Scholar
  9. Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55, 1259–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Aksela, M., & Meisalo, V. (2009). Adoption of ICT in science education: A case study of Communication Channels in A Teachers’ Professional Development Project. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(2), 103–118.Google Scholar
  11. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Moreira, A., Loureiro, M. J., & Marques, L. (2005). Percepções de professores e gestores de escolas relativas aos obstáculos à integração das TIC no ensino das ciências. Actas do VII Congreso Internacional sobre Investigación en la Didáctica de las Ciencias: Educación científica para la ciudadanía. Granada.0212–4521.Google Scholar
  13. Morgan, D. (1988). Focus Group as qualitative research. Newbury park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. National Education Research Forum/NERF. (2000). The impact of Educational Research on Policy and Practice. Sub-group of NERF Report. http://www.nerf-uk.org/documents/
  15. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Pombo, L., & Costa, N. (2009). The impact of Biology/Geology School Teachers masters courses on the improvement of Science Education quality in Portugal. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pombo, L., Guerra, C., Moreira, A., Smith, M., Hoath, L., & Howard, D. (2010). Evaluation of the quality of Science Education programmes that use Web 2.0 tools – an Anglo-Portuguese Research Project. In F.A. Costa, (Org). In F.A. Costa, G.L. Miranda, J.F. Matos, I. Chagas, E. Cruz (Org). I Encontro Internacional TIC e Educação Proceedings – Inovação Curricular com TIC. (pp. 407–414). Institute of Education, University of Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  18. Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Shin, T. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 123–149.Google Scholar
  19. Uğur, B., Akkoyunlu, B., & Kurbanoğlu, S. (2011). Students’ opinions on blended learning and its implementation in terms of their learning styles. Education and Information Technologies, 16, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lúcia Pombo
    • 1
  • Cecília Guerra
    • 1
  • António Moreira
    • 1
  • Leigh Hoath
    • 2
  • Dave Howard
    • 2
  • Malcolm Smith
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EducationResearch Centre for Didactics and Technology in Education of Trainers, University of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Teaching Health and CareBradford College University CentreBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations