The Nature of Science and How Science Is Represented in the National Curriculum - Essay Example

Assessment of Professional Investigations The Nature of Science and how it is represented in the National Curriculum and taught in schools The Nature of Science and how Science is represented in the UK National Curriculum and taught in schools Plus an investigation into the pedagogical ingredients necessary for teachers to successfully utilize interactive whiteboards in secondary level science lessons Contents Contents 3 List of Figures 3 Section One – Introduction 4 Section Two – Review of Literature 5 The Nature of Science 5 Teaching the Nature of Science 5 Improving Understanding of the Nature of Science 7 The UK National Curriculum for Science 8 The Nature of Science in the National Curriculum 8 Section Three – Investigation 10 Advantages of Interactive Whiteboards 10 Interactive Whiteboard Use in Science Lessons 11 The Role of the Teacher and Teaching Practices 12 Suggested Teaching Methods and Models 13 Successfully Demonstrated Pedagogy 16 Summary 17 Conclusions 18 References 20 List of Figures Figure 1: The intersection of knowledge, pedagogy and technology 13 Figure 2: Phases of a typical lesson for iWB use 14 Figure 3: Miller et al.'s (2004b) three-stage process of pedagogical development for effective teaching with iWB technology 15 Figure 4: The Cramlington Learning Cycle 16 Section One – Introduction The quality of science education is of critical importance to society and the economy because it prepares future professionals in various scientific fields, engenders scientifically informed citizens, and sustains the rapid advancements that have already been made, and the global information and communication society we live in today (Fensham, 2008). This concern led to the Perth Declaration on Science and Technology Education in 2007 by over 1,000 science educators from 50 nations. The need for science education to meet national education goals and socio-economic needs was highlighted, as was the need for reflecting the rapid changes in the planning, teaching, and learning of science. A popular tool in science classrooms today is the interactive whiteboard (iWB) (Marzano, 2009; Singleton, 2010). An investigation is made of the pedagogical ingredients necessary for teachers to successfully utilize iWBs in secondary science lessons. To this end, we first examine the nature of science in the context of the schooling environment, how it is taught, how to improve its understanding, and how science is represented in the UK National Curriculum and taught in schools by conducting a literature review. To support the main research focus, the investigation also considers the advantages of iWBs, their use in science lessons, and the role of the teacher and pedagogy in this. This leads to examining appropriate teaching methods and models and identifying some good and bad practices, keeping in mind how to effectively teach scientific concepts and facilitate natural learning. Finally, the summary briefly discusses how the lessons learned from the review of literature and investigation would likely change or influence the researcher’s own teaching. Section Two – Review of Literature The Nature of Science A study of the nature of science is concerned with clarifying what science actually is and is not, what comes within the scope of science or not, with appreciating the importance and impact of science, etc. Students who have a good grasp of the nature of science are able to "recognize the functions of and distinguish among observations, inferences, scientific facts, laws, and theories" (Gess-Newsome, 2002). However, what exactly is the nature of science? The answer to this question is not straightforward because there is no single and permanent answer. Even philosophers and others have debated endlessly on this topic, so there is no universal agreement (Gilbert, 2006: 31), neither historically nor today. Contributions to the field however, have been made by many. For example, Descartes set out the deductivist view of scientific reasoning, Galileo demonstrated the need to use accurate measurements, Locke expounded the practice of empiricism, Newton encouraged scientific discussion, etc. To really grasp this subject matter in depth though is a philosophical pursuit. There is no established definition of the nature of science that one could look up. Nonetheless, it is possible to explain certain ideas in simple terms, give examples to make distinctions, learn about acceptable scientific methods, and be informed about the history of science and how scientific thought developed, and so on. This does at least enable the nature of science to be appreciated better if not completely understood. As an example, knowledge about how interactive whiteboards work comes within the domain of science, but whether a teacher should use a whiteboard or to what extent it should be used, is a pedagogical judgement, and is not something we could scientifically determine. Although learning the nature of science develops fundamental conceptual understanding of science, the nature of the topic is that it is difficult to comprehend for many, and many students perceive it as uninteresting or unnecessary. How to teach the nature of science and how to improve its understanding must now be examined to address this issue. Teaching the Nature of Science In the past, teaching about the nature of science simply involved reflecting on school experiments and scientific theories (Solomon, 1991). The concept has broadened significantly now to encompass several aspects, perspectives, contexts and related issues. This change itself is reflective of the increasing complexity of modern life and the nature of science also, because it is itself in a state of constant flux. However, expecting students to comprehend in-depth, the intricacies of the nature of the science, which is really a philosophical task, is unnecessary. It is not surprising that even teachers would have difficulty in expounding the nature of science, as pointed out by Irwin (2000). At best therefore, we can simplify certain important concepts to facilitate understanding by students appropriate to their level and needs. Yet, in practice, even this simplification of the subject matter is not always given full attention (ibid), most likely because it is not given much attention in tests either. “The crux of the matter is that at all levels of science teaching and textbooks emphasize the factual recall of science content to the near exclusion of the knowledge-generation process” (Gilbert, 2006: 29). The nature of science as presented in schools is necessarily a simplification because the real world of nature is very complex. For this reason, important decisions need to be made as to how to simplify the subject matter for presenting to students. Taber (2008) discussed effective ‘curricula models’ as simplifications for scientific concepts that could honestly guide teachers with respect to developing the target knowledge for both prior learning and conceptual development. He then suggested this for teaching the nature of science while pointing out the National Curriculum is unable to realize its aims for teaching the same given that there is no “suitable explicit curricular model to guide teaching”. This suggests the need to reconsider the ‘nature of science’ as a component of the science curriculum, as examined earlier by Rudolph (2000). He noted, “Efforts to integrate an authentic view of the nature of science into the curriculum have often met with little success”. The problem has been compounded by differences in how scientific inquiry is conceived that are often conflicting. After discussing previous attempts to tackle this important issue, Rudolph puts forward another approach. Central to this is to acknowledge, “no single nature of science exists and to develop curricula that help students understand instead the diverse, local practices that are found within and across scientific disciplines”. This brings us round to highlighting the very fact that the way the nature of science is presented to students is a simplification to aid understanding of science in the real world. Furthermore, this brings us to question whether the extent to which the nature of science is covered in the curriculum is too much or too little. Improving Understanding of the Nature of Science The argument that it is too little is supported by the need to improve students’ conceptual understanding of the very nature of science before they can grasp other aspects of the subject. By improving students’ understanding of the nature of science, this should in theory lead to improvements in students’ understanding of science overall. On the other hand, we have seen that it is a difficult concept to grasp in depth let alone test, so there is a case for minimizing its inclusion until the students attend higher classes. Clearly, a balance is required, but achieving the right balance also leads to questioning the balance between examinable and non-examinable curriculum content in general. This dilemma is not unique to science. It applies to all subjects requiring at least some knowledge and understanding of the very nature of that subject. Integrating the nature of science topics with the rest of the science curriculum could be one way of addressing the problem. This entails understanding how students learn naturally to form conceptions before developing associated knowledge, and how teachers can best explain those concepts to students in an interesting and informative manner. We also consider how the iWB can assist in this process. Bybee et al. (1991) presented a case for increasing the emphasis on the nature of science, but if all the seven justifications he provides were to be realized, this would require placing the subject matter in a historical context. Still we are faced with the problem of presenting a cohesive view of how science developed, and as experienced by Irwin (2000), of overcoming the reluctance to learn different perspectives. Nonetheless, it is important for students to have a clear understanding of the nature of science, otherwise it leads to misperceptions such as regarding atoms as ‘real entities’ rather than a construct developed to usefully explain observed phenomena (ibid). To examine how we can aid this understanding, the choice of words used in the course of teaching can often have a significant bearing on how science is conceived or how misconceptions develop. Lederman (2007) and others have pointed out inadequate conceptions of the nature and role of science still prevail among students. The consequence is that science is considered rigid and objective; they fail to acknowledge “creativity, inference, or tentativeness as characteristics of science” (Schwartz, 2007), and this makes the subject inaccessible. In reinforcing the true nature of science, the first few introductory classes are often crucial. Hohman et al (2006) demonstrated the benefits from a solid grounding in “the nature and limitations of science, the steps of the scientific method, and the importance of mathematical tools of various types to scientific progress”. In-depth discussions on these topics clarified the concepts and helped students appreciate later topics. Moreover, the understanding of the nature of science and scientific enquiry by teachers can be linked to teaching methods advocated by current reforms. A course that explicitly taught these topics to teachers was evaluated in a study by Gess-Newsome (2002) and found to foster a “blended view of science as a body of knowledge generated through the active application of scientific inquiry”. This in turn, increases the likelihood that these teachers would employ teaching methods favourable to facilitating their students’ understanding of the same. These findings also highlight the importance of teachers having proper conceptions of science before students can be expected to grasp them. The UK National Curriculum for Science In the UK where formal education is guided by the National Curriculum, science is one of the core subjects at key stages 3 and 4. The aims mention ‘the investigative and practical nature of the subject’ and in addition to developing literacy and numeracy skills, the programme of study seeks to develop certain ICT skills such as “data logging and analysis, Internet research, modeling and simulation software, and appropriate methods for communicating scientific information” (QCDA, 2010b). Thus, the use of technology is an integral component of the science curriculum. Moreover, it expects students to acquire specific skills, which can only be done if the students are actively engaged in using these tools. Although use of the iWB is not specifically prescribed, the case studies described on the Curriculum and Development Authority website do involve using iWBs. For example, an activity is described in which a secondary class learning about colour mixing were able to use their iWB to test their predictions of the effects of applying certain filters. The Nature of Science in the National Curriculum In the National Curriculum, the nature of science is an important concept at key stages 3 and 4, particularly with respect to its practical and investigative aspects (QCDA, 2010). This is stated to offer opportunities for being motivated, engaging, collaborating with others and increasing students’ understanding of the world around them. Moreover, this inclusion is designed to make them explore contemporary applications, its implications and effects “on a personal, local, national and global scale”. At each key stage, emphasis is given to learning key concepts in science and this is distinguished from key processes related to the content knowledge. The key concepts are designed to promote the development of the following (QCDA, 2010c): Scientific thinking Applications and implications of science Cultural understanding Collaboration Hence, to appreciate the nature of science is an integral part of the National Curriculum for Science. Moreover, it obligates utilising technological tools to develop the required skills. The iWB as the investigation will show, is well suited for this. There is also an argument for separating the different objectives of science curricula to define a new curriculum model. A large-scale pilot study indicated that focusing exclusively on promoting scientific literacy significantly improved student response and engagement (Millar, 2005). However, this disregards the importance of teaching students about key concepts. This is necessary to develop and strengthen conceptual understanding and has long-term benefits as opposed to short-term gains through test scores. By having an integrated model that includes teaching key concepts besides the bulk of scientific literacy, as the National Curriculum strives to be, much of the issues surrounding teaching the nature of science are resolved. Section Three – Investigation Advantages of Interactive Whiteboards iWBs are suitable for whole-class teaching (Glover & Miller, 2001), especially for core subjects at secondary level (Moss et al., 2007). They allow a variety of representations (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2003) to meet the needs of a wide range of learners (Latham, 2002), and make it easy to utilize a wide range of multimedia resources (Ekhami, 2002) that are attractive to students and teachers alike (Kennewell, 2004). They also enable ideas and concepts to be presented in ways that deepen understanding and lessons can be covered quickly using previously prepared materials (Miller, 2003), which can easily be reused (Walker, 2002). In short, they allow teachers to have greater flexibility in teaching, as shown by Cogill (2002). For teaching the biological sciences specifically, Buckley (2000) used a case study to show the usefulness of digital information in the learning process. In terms of benefits to students, they are found to hold their attention much better (Smith et al., 2005), and motivate them more resulting in academic and behavioural improvements (Beeland, 2002). Low achievers also benefit (Clemens et al., 2001). Marzano & Haystead (2009) showed that using iWBs in the classroom led to a 16% gain in student achievement. Cuthell (2005) conducted a yearlong survey of school implementation of this technology and concluded that it “has the potential to make student learning a faster and more effective process”, while simultaneously it helps to restore teachers’ sense of autonomy. The gain in student achievement is attributable to three inherent features of these special whiteboards according to Marzano (2009): (1) the ability to allow learner responses to be made and displayed, (2) the use of graphics and other visual information, and (3) the presence of ‘reinforcers’ which are applications enabling teachers to signal a correct answer or present some information. On the other hand, iWBs are clearly more expensive than other presentation tools, take time to learn to use, and can still be difficult to use and maintain by many. As for students, there have been reports of information being confused (Cogill, 2003) and students not always being able to interact (Knight et al., 2004). However, Beeland (2002) showed that the least use of interactivity also corresponded to greater positive perception of the iWBs. Thus, there have also been inconclusive studies such as that of Weimer (2001). The contradictory findings can be explained given that it is not iWBs per se, but other fundamental learning characteristics that whiteboards are able to exploit when used properly. The proportion of results found to the contrary in the above-mentioned Marzano (2009) study, indicated the same; that more fundamental success factors were at play, and thus the conditions under which iWBs are effective. Interactive Whiteboard Use in Science Lessons Becta research by Underwood (2009) showed significant findings on the impact of digital technologies in general on formal science education at Key Stages 3 and 4. For example, digital technologies led to progress in Key Stage 3 science equivalent to a term, improvements in GCSE grades due to broadband access, and a positive association between Key Stage 4 test scores and having a computer at home. Although this research did not specifically test for the impact of iWBs at this stage of education, it did test for outcomes attributed to the iWB at Key Stages 1 and 2. The results for Key Stage 2 science indicated progress for all pupils (except high attaining girls) from exposure to the iWB particularly among low attaining boys. The results for Key Stage 1 science indicated improved progress for all girls and for average to high attaining boys. However, the report also pointed out its study supports the view that learning gains are achieved through opportunities provided by technology that are explicitly linked to a suitable model or framework for learning (Underwood, 2009). iWBs are widely used in science classes in the UK, and several studies have been undertaken to explore how they are used (e.g. Hennessy & Deaney, 2007). Hennessy et al. (2007) found that many science teachers use simulations as well as projected animations, data logging, and so on “to encourage and support prediction and to demonstrate scientific concepts and physical processes … They also integrated technology carefully with other practical activities to support stepwise knowledge building, consolidation and application”. Apart from demonstrating and explaining scientific concepts, iWBs are mostly used to either complement or replace science practicals (Hennessy et al., 2007) due to their benefits discussed previously. Computer-based technologies can be used to show ‘virtual experiments’, and as they are simulations, they have the distinct advantage of allowing ‘what if’ explorations to be made, and immediately; in a safe manner that can be repeated. Real experiments would be relatively costly, would take time for the results to show, would not always be safe, and would require new resources for repeating. The computer-based alternatives to conducting real science experiments can play a useful role in reinforcing student conceptions, and therefore have important implications for designing activities for the iWB, the curriculum and teaching methodology. That said it is also apparent no computer-based technology can ever totally replace the need for science practicals, because students will still need to have some hands-on experience, especially at higher secondary level and for professional development. The Role of the Teacher and Teaching Practices An ESRC funded research based on video case studies sought to model the complex interactivity of iWB use in classrooms (Armstrong et al., 2005). They concluded that the potential of the iWB is not properly realized, because teachers need to use such technology more appropriately, which requires continual training and support. It was clear therefore; the teacher’s role is central in ensuring the iWB is used appropriately and in a way that promotes quality interactions and at the same time satisfies the learning objectives. Similarly, Wood & Ashfield’s (2007) research indicated, “it is the skill and the professional knowledge of the teacher who mediates the interaction, and facilitates the development of pupils’ creative responses at the interface of technology which is critical to the enhancement of the whole-class teaching and learning process”. Without the right approach or methodological training, the iWB becomes ineffective in being used as a teaching tool (Greiffenhagen, 2000). Marzano (2009) suggests whiteboards are most effective when teachers organize the information appropriately into manageable segments, ensure that only important information is conveyed through visual stimuli, when discussing the answers with students to elicit their opinions, and by focusing on why the answer is so when using the reinforcing features. Glover et al. (2005) state that the match between technology and pedagogy is therefore what needs to be understood for promoting interactive learning using iWBs. Their own earlier studies have shown that the learning experience is affected by teacher attitudes as much as it is by teaching tools. To this end, Miller et al. (2004a), Denning et al. (2003) and others have focused on how teaching practices can best be combined with using the iWB and suggested a number of teacher models. The interactivity is therefore between not only students and the whiteboard but includes the teacher as well. Moreover, it is necessary for teachers to be aware of the conceptual framework of the subject matter, and the skills to be developed using the iWB besides the subject. The immense benefit of the interactivity element has been highlighted by McCormick & Scrimshaw (2001), Beauchamp (2004), and others. However, as evidenced by Jones & Tanner (2002), the interactivity is most effective when it is sustained through questioning besides offering a range of activities. Beauchamp & Parkinson (2005) who discussed the potential of iWBs in science lessons point out that interactivity is dependent on the iWB features as well as the lesson objectives. These ideas also bring to mind Mishra & Koehler’s (2006) adaptation of Schulman’ (1986) original idea of simultaneously addressing content knowledge with pedagogical skills. With the addition of the technology component, we can illustrate this as three overlapping areas, shown in Figure 1 below, noting that the three components are closely tied to each other, and that effective teaching takes place where they all intersect. Figure 1: The intersection of knowledge, pedagogy and technology Suggested Teaching Methods and Models The Department for Education and Skills (DfES, 2004) published a document on iWB use in science for embedding ICT at secondary level. This document is helpful in clarifying the scope for using iWBs and how this affects teaching strategies, and in providing a useful set of resources and guidance with examples of case studies. For example, in section 4 dealing with pedagogy, it states that the strategies making use of iWBs are those that are already familiar, i.e. regardless of the technology used, the same basic features are found as are typical in successful lessons. These features are careful planning, lesson structuring and having clear objectives. The use of the iWB therefore is to enhance the teaching strategy not work without it. To illustrate the potential contribution of the iWB in a secondary science lesson, the aforementioned document separates the lesson into a number of phases, shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Phases of a typical lesson for iWB use For the starter activity, the DfES suggests students could be set challenges and be allowed to write their ideas on it or they could be asked to recall what they have learned in previous lessons. For science, this stage can also be used to clarify the context and introduce the concepts and assumptions. During the second stage, it suggests teachers gather all the resources to be used, and structure their lessons though this should really be planned in advanced. The cases for which iWBs can make important contributions to presenting new information are listed as modeling new concepts, simulations, stimulating discussion and explaining new ideas. Presenting models and simulations are certainly more appealing on the iWB and can be done to great effect that would not be possible on paper, especially to demonstrate the effects of changing parameters or variables. However, care must be taken not to present too much or unnecessary information at the introductory stage. Focus should be on introducing the topic or concept instead, and the development stage should be designed to make the learning by students thorough. Finally, it suggests the plenary stage can enable students “to present some of their ideas to the rest of the class for discussion, encouraging them to review and reflect on what they have learned”, which is very useful if time permits. Not only would it consolidate what has been learnt, but it also provides the opportunity for students to practically demonstrate their knowledge while improving their confidence and presentation skills in the process. The teacher could also end the lesson by pointing to extra activities for students or detailing their homework. While these are useful suggestions, as the document itself acknowledges, ultimately it rests on the teachers how they exploit the iWB; on the resources used and how teachers interact with the students. Furthermore, the above model concentrates on the use of the iWB during the actual lesson whereas a significant proportion of pre-lesson planning is also necessary for successfully using the iWB. Glover et al’s (2004) model stresses the importance of structured lesson planning, stepped conceptual learning, pacing activities, and having cognitive reviews to make pedagogical interactivity more effective. They identify six ‘manipulations’ (Miller et al., 2004b) to enhance the interactivity between student, teacher and course material as follows: 1. Drag and drop 2. Hide and reveal 3. Colour 4. Shading and highlighting 5. Matching equivalent terms 6. Movement or animation 7. Immediate feedback In order to establish an effective teaching method using the iWB, they propose a three-stage pedagogic development process illustrated below (Figure 3). In the first stage, the iWB is focused such that it enhances didactic teaching. In the second stage, after realising its additional benefits, the teacher promotes interactivity through questioning and other activities. Finally, the enhanced interactive stage occurs when the teacher transits from an instructional to a more involving role that uses the technology in a stimulating and integrated way. This allows true interactive learning to take place. Figure 3: Miller et al.'s (2004b) three-stage process of pedagogical development for effective teaching with iWB technology Davison & Pratt (2003) propose “a sequence of changing pupil and teacher participation pattern within the classroom involving teacher and pupil use of the board based on its visual and haptic affordances”. Others such as Jewitt (2002) suggested multi-modal approaches to pedagogy, while Rasmussen et al. (2004) and Goldin-Meadow & Singer (2005) for example, have explored these further using gesture patterns. A more innovative structure for teaching and learning that embeds technology into the process, known as the Cramlington Learning Cycle (CLV, 2010), is shown in Figure 4 below. This is centered on creating a community of learners and thinkers and incorporates accelerated learning, group problem solving and other features. Such a model is conducive to exploiting the potential of iWBs for creating a central and interactive learning locus of attention facilitated by the teacher. Figure 4: The Cramlington Learning Cycle (Source: CLV, 2010) Successfully Demonstrated Pedagogy In addition to recognizing the role of pedagogy in using iWBs and considering others’ suggestions, it would be useful to consider also, how iWBs have been used successfully in actual practice. A study by Schnittka & Bell (2009) provides some useful insight. This study involved an investigation of nine pre-service biology teachers’ use of interactive display systems (iDSs) to support the new reforms-based science instruction. Each system comprised of a computer with Internet connection, iWB, and digital projector. The research also investigated whether the teachers would actually use the iDSs in the first place and if so, its extent of conformity with the latest science reforms. Use of iDSs in the above-mentioned study was shown to be substantial; in a variety of ways, and in most cases, in ways that did conform to the latest reforms, but that explicit approaches are necessary for preparing student teachers in using educational technology in some areas - developing inquiry skills, modeling using digital images, and video content. Key findings of the first research area demonstrating good practices and of relevance to this study are the following: Scientific content was made more relevant by linking it to current information. Observations and inferences were encouraged in order to engage the students. Inquiry instruction was fostered by using online simulations permitting the manipulation of variables and testing predictions. Analysis and discussion on socio-scientific issues was encouraged when presenting data. On the other hand, the types of iDS ‘misuses’ were as follows: Giving predominantly text based presentations for students to simply copy Including images that did not directly support the learning objectives Presenting video clips for passive watching, with little student engagement Simply demonstrating simulations without involving the students Summary Becta’s (2010) ‘Next Generation Learning Charter’ stresses learning with technology. Clearly, technology is now an embedded part of our society, and technological tools such as the iWB enable immense benefits to educating children when used effectively. Becta rightly point out that it is paramount the next generation of teachers is proficient in the effective and innovative use of technology. To this end, the researcher has reflected on what has been gathered and learned from conducting the above literature review and the in-depth investigation. It is now pertinent to discuss some of the key points and issues focusing on how pedagogy can take advantage of iWBs effectively and with a view to revealing how the research will likely change or influence my own teaching. Concerning the latest science reform measures, which emphasise developing conceptual understanding and fostering inquiry and active learning, this is a major change of approach. However, technological tools such as the iWB now at our disposable have the potential to assist us in creative and enjoyable ways. Science teachers in particular have to work with a variety of textual, pictorial, audio and video material. Therefore, they need to be especially careful in coordinating and integrating these different types of information, as pointed out by Iding (2000). It is not sufficient to simply present information, including dynamic visuals to students and expect them to understand it immediately (Goldman, 2003). The confusion of information to students, reported by Cogill (2003) mentioned earlier, most probably occurs either because too much information is presented, the information presented is not carefully selected as suitable, or it is not clearly explained when presented. This research and investigation has helped to be better informed of the scope for iWBs, and how they can be used effectively. For example, suitable uses for the iWB would be for presenting audio-visual information, carrying out simulations of some science experiments, and when teaching inductive methods. On the other hand, it would probably be inappropriate to use the iWB for example, to present lengthy pieces of text, especially if this content is already present in the students’ textbooks. Planning the lesson well and in advance becomes even more important than it is for traditional teaching methods that do not involve any technological tools. An appropriate long-term strategy that the writer would use is to build and maintain a database of instructional material and other resources used from the outset of embarking upon teaching. IWBs have the obvious and big advantage over black/chalkboards and (non-electronic) whiteboards in that material is reusable without the need to prepare it again from scratch. As experience in teaching grows, this material can be improved and adapted. I have a strong background in IT and I am familiar with the power of technology. I also appreciate when it makes sense to use technological and other tools where applicable, but for teachers in general, I would point out the need for proficiency in the use of technology even before considering the pedagogical ingredients for using it effectively. I believe that for teacher training to include proficiency in using iWBs and other technological tools is indispensable, for not only new teachers but also existing teachers. Together with this is the need for school administrators to provide a high level of technical support, as shown in a Becta funded research by Scrimshaw (2004). I intend to fully cooperate with the school I am appointed to ensure that science lessons take on a whole new dimension through interesting, interactive and effective utilization of iWBs in combination with appropriate pedagogical ingredients. Conclusions Teaching the nature of science presents problems because of the difficult nature of the subject matter itself. Nonetheless, it is an essential component of science teaching and the UK National Curriculum acknowledges this. Students learn best from experience, and technology can play a key role in both improving conceptual understanding and providing students with learning experiences. Therefore, technology such as the iWB makes sense to use, but it must be used to enhance the teaching and facilitate the natural learning process. Even without such technologies, teaching can be made effective by using various techniques, but the potential of iWBs is great as long as they are used appropriately. It is in the interests of manufacturers of to promote the benefits of this technology, but evidence from several studies has shown the same. However, it was shown that it is not the technology per se but how well it is utlised by the teacher that matters most. Active and student centered teaching methods are superior to the science lessons of the past where teachers simply presented facts and students sat firmly in their places (Mortimer & Scott, 2003, p.2). Teaching methods must be aligned to fully exploit the potential of iWBs. Several examples of successful pedagogical ingredients necessary for teachers to successfully utilize iWBs in secondary level science lessons were identified, discussed, and promised to be adopted. Notable points gathered on the right pedagogy are listed below. Strategy of careful planning, lesson structuring and having clear objectives, as in DfES (2004), Glover et al. (2004), or Cramlington Learning Cycle Appropriate and manageable organisation of information; Conveying only important information; avoiding too much or unnecessary information (e.g. by being concise or linking it to current issues of relevance) Using the technology in a stimulating and integrated way to enhance interactive learning, e.g. using ‘manipulations’ (see Miller et al., 2004b), through questioning, encouraging observations and inferences, and discussion and analysis on socio-scientific issues References Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S. & Thompson, I. 2005. Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 457-469. Beauchamp, G. 2004. Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 327-348. Beauchamp, G. & Parkinson, J. 2005. Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, Vol. 86, No. 316, pp. 97-103. Becta. 2010. Next Generation Learning Charter: Get public recognition for improving learning with technology. http://www.becta.org.uk/nextgenerationlearningcharter [Accessed 18 March, 2010]. Beeland, W. D. 2002. Student engagement, visual learning and technology: can interactive whiteboards help? Action Research Exchange, Vol.1, No.1. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/ are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/beeland_am.pdf [Accessed 15 March, 2010]. Buckley, Barbara C. 2000. Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in Biology. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 22, No. 9, pp. 895-935. Caine, Renate Nummela and Caine, Geoffrey. 2006. The Way We Learn. Educational Leadership, Sept. 2006. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Clemens, A., Moore, T. & Nelson, B. 2001. Math intervention ‘SMART’ project – Student mathematical analysis and reasoning with technology. http://www.smarterkids.org/research/paper10.asp [Accessed 15 March, 2010]. CLV. 2010. Planning for Transformation: The Cramlington Learning Cycle. Cramlington Learning Village. http://www.cramlingtonlv.co.uk/school/transformation/cramlearncycle.htm [Accessed 20 March, 2010]. Cogill, J. 2002. How is the interactive whiteboard being used in the primary school and how does this affect teachers and teaching? www.virtuallearning.org.uk/whiteboards/ IFS_Interactive_whiteboards_in_the_primary_school.pdf [Accessed 15 March, 2010]. Cogill, J. 2003. The use of interactive whiteboards in the primary school: effects on pedagogy. Research Bursary Reports. In Higgins et al., 2007. Cuthell, J. P. 2005. Seeing the meaning: The impact of interactive whiteboards on teaching and learning. Proceedings of WCCE 05, Stellenbosch, South Africa. http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/changemanage/iwb/Seeing%20the%20meaning.pdf [Accessed 17 March, 2010]. Davison, I. & Pratt, D. 2003. An investigation into the visual and kinaesthetic affordances of interactive whiteboards. Research Bursary Reports. Coventry: Becta. Denning et al. 2003. In Glover et al., 2005. DfES. 2004. Use of interactive whiteboards in science. Department for education and skills. http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=DFES-1442-2005& [Accessed 18 March, 2010]. Ekhami, L. 2002. The power of interactive whiteboards, School Library Media Activities Monthly, Vol.18, No.8, pp.35-38. Fensham, Peter J. 2008. Science education policy-making: eleven emerging issues. UNESCO. Retrieved 14 March, 2010 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001567/156700e.pdf. Gess-Newsome, Julie. 2002. The use and impact of explicit instruction about the nature of science and science inquiry in an elementary science methods course. Science and Education, Vol. 11, pp. 55-62. Gilbert, John K. 2006. Science education. Illustrated edition. Taylor & Francis. Glover, D. & Miller, D. 2001. A report to Blackburn and Colne EAZ on new technologies. Keele Department of Education, Keele University. In Higgins et al., 2007. Glover, D., Miller, D. & Averis, D. 2004. Panacea or prop: the role of the interactive whiteboard in improving teaching effectiveness, paper presented at the Tenth International Congress of Mathematics Education, Copenhagen, July 2004. http://www.icme-organisers.dk/tsg15/Glover_et_al.pdf [Accessed 16 March, 2010]. Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D. & Door, V. 2005. The Interactive Whiteboard: a literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, Vol.14, No.2, pp. 155-170. Goldberg, E. 2001. The executive brain: Frontal lobes and the civilized mind. New York: Oxford University Press. In Caine & Caine, 2006. Goldman, S. R. 2003. Learning in complex domains: when and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, Vol. 13, pp. 239-244. Greiffenhagen, C. 2000. Interactive whiteboards in mathematics education: possibilities and dangers. In Smith et al., 2005. Hennessy, S. et al. 2007. Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Computers and Education, Vol.48, Issue 1, pp.137-152. Hennessy, Sara and Deaney, Rosemary. 2007. Multimedia tools to stimulate practitioner thinking and reflection on using interactive whiteboards in the classroom. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/168100.doc [Accessed 20 March, 2010]. Higgins, Steve; Beauchamp, Gary, and Miller, Dave. 2007. Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, Vol.32, No.3, pp.213-225. Hohman, James et al. 2006. A ‘Nature of Science’ Discussion: Connecting Mathematics and Science. Journal of College Science Teaching, Sept. 2006. Iding, M. 2000. Is seeing believing? Features of effective multimedia for learning science. International Journal of Instructive Media, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 403-416. Irwin, Allan R. 2000. Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, Vol. 84, pp. 5-26. Jones, S. & Tanner, H. 2002. Teachers interpretation of effective whole-class interactive teaching in secondary mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 265-274. Kennewell, S. & Beauchamp, G. 2003. The influence of a technology-rich classroom environment on elementary teachers’ pedagogy and children’s learning. Young Children and Learning Technologies: Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, Vol. 34, pp.65-70. Kennewell, S. 2004. Researching the influence of interactive presentation tools on teacher pedagogy, paper presented at the British Education Research Association Conference, UNIST, Manchester, September. In Higgins et al., 2007. Knight, P., Pennant, J. & Piggot, J. 2004. What does it mean to ‘use the interactive whiteboard’ in the daily mathematics lesson? Micromath, Vol.20, No.2, pp.14-16. Latham, P. 2002. Teaching and learning primary mathematics: the impact of interactive whiteboards. North Islington Education Action Zone: BEAM research papers. http:// www.beam.co.uk/pdfs/RES03.pdf [Accessed 15 March, 2010]. Lederman, N. 2007. Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In Handbook of research on science education, Eds. S. Abell and N. Lederman. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates. Marzano, Robert J. 2009. Teaching with Interactive Whitboards. The Art and Science of Teaching. Educational Leadership, Nov. 2009. Marzano, R. J. & Haystead, M. 2009. Final report on the evaluation of the Promethean technology. Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory. In Marzano, 2009. McCormick, R. & Scrimshaw, P. (2001). Information and communications technology, knowledge and pedagogy. Education, Communication and Information, Vol. 1, pp. 37-57. Millar, Robin. 2005. Scientific Literacy: Can the school science curriculum deliver? In Communicating European Research 2005. Springer Netherlands. Miller, D. 2003. Developing interactive whiteboard activity. Micromath, Vol.19, pp.33-35. http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ed/iaw/docs/NuffieldReport.pdf [Accessed 15 March, 2010]. Miller, D., Glover, D., Averis, D. & Door, V. 2004a. Research reports to the Nuffield Foundation, BECTa and TTA, Keele University, Dept. of Education. In Glover et al., 2005. Miller, D., Glover, D. & Averis, D. 2004b. Matching technology and pedagogy in teaching mathematics: understanding fractions using a ‘virtual manipulative’ fraction wall, paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, UMIST, Manchester, Sept. 2004. In Higgins, 2007. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. 2006. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. Vol. 108, pp. 1017-1054. In Schnittka & Bell, 2009. Mortimer, Eduardo F. and Scott, Philip H. 20.03, Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms Open University Press. Moss, Gemma et al. 2007. The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation – An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion project. Institute of Education, University of London. DfEs Research Report No. 816. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/rr816.pdf [Accessed 19 March, 2010]. QCDA. 2010. Science, personal development and every child matters. http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/subjects/key-stage-3/science/Science-and-personal-development/index.aspx [Accessed 20 March, 2010]. QCDA. 2010b. Science and the national curriculum aims. http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/subjects/key-stage-4/science/Science-and-aims/index.aspx [Accessed 20 March, 2010]. QCDA. 2010c. Science key stage 3 – programme of study: key concepts. http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/subjects/key-stage-3/science/programme-of-study/index.aspx?tab=2 [Accessed 20 March, 2010]. Rudolph, John L. 2000. Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 403-419. Schnittka, Christine G. & Bell, Randy L. 2009. Preservice biology teachers’ use of interactive display systems to support reforms-based science instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 131-159. Schulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 4-14. In Schnittka & Bell, 2009. Schwartz, Renee. 2007. What’s in a Word? How word choice can develop misconceptions about the nature of science. Science Scope, October 2007. Scrimshaw, Peter. 2004. Enabling teachers to make successful use of ICT. Becta. http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/enablers.pdf [Accessed 20 March, 2010]. Singleton, Adam. 2010. Educational Tools for 2010. Articlesbase. Retrieved 12 March, 2010 from http://www.articlesbase.com/tutoring-articles/educational-tools-for-2010-1971699.html. Smith, Heather J. et al. 2005. Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 21, pp. 91-101. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Solomon, Joan. 1991. Teaching about the nature of science in the British National Curriculum. Science Education, Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 95-103. Taber, Keith S. 2008. Towards a Curricula Model of the Nature of Science. Science and Education, Vol. 17, pp. 179-218. Underwood, Jean. 2009. The impact of digital technology: A review of the evidence of the impact of digital technologies on formal education. Becta. Walker, D. 2002. Meet Whiteboard Wendy. Times Educational Supplement, Sept. 13. In Higgins et al., 2007. Weimer, Michael J. 2001. The influence of technology such as a SMART Board Interactive Whiteboard on student motivation in the classroom. West Noble Middle School, Ligonier, Indiana. In Partridge, Sally. Retrieved 14 March, 2010 from www.smarttech.com. Wood, Ruth & Ashfield, Jean. 2008. The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 84-96. Read More