Assessing Teachers Integration Technology and Literacy in Elementary Science Classrooms in Kuwait - Case Study Example

Assessing Teacher’s Integration Technology and Literacy in Elementary Science rooms in Kuwait The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of experienced science teachers about integrating literacy and technology while teaching science for elementary level. A concept map and rubric were developed based on TPACK model to assess teachers understanding. Then an in-depth interview technique was used to collect more data from the teachers. For the analysis, concept map was graded based on the rubric and in-depth interviews were thematically analyzed. Results obtained from data shows teachers have a negative perception about integrating technology and literacy in their classes, due to several barriers. This paper concludes with recommendations to facilitate the use of technology and literacy in teaching science, in the elementary schools, in Kuwait. Keywords: Integration, Technological Knowledge, TPACK, Pedagogical knowledge, Content Knowledge, Concept map, Rubric. Introduction The current setting in which teachers are working is one of rapid change. The whole paradigm of education has changed during the past decades, with major changes to the role of teachers, together with new approaches to the curriculum and assessment. More specifically, science teachers need to follow new methods while teaching science such as inquiry based. They also need to establish a base for scientific literacy. Thus, teachers need to provide obvious explanation for students to meet the literacy demands of the science. This using of literacy in teaching is important to science education because it will help students to express scientific phenomena, and understand general topics discussed by scientists in real life (Norris, & Phillips, 2003).However, when it comes to reality, teachers face many challenges to meet their goals with their students while doing science. Like many other teachers in different countries, teachers, in Kuwait face many barriers and challenges while teaching: such as lack of supports from administration, overloaded curriculum, teaching for testing, lack of resources, extra administrative work, extra school activities and events, and so many other confronts. All of the previous difficulties can be a factor for leaving literacy behind or give it little attention while teaching the main subject. The purposes of speaking and listening, reading and writing, remain central to being literate; however, living in modern society has formed new literacy needs, especially with the use of technology (Bakia, Means, Gallagher, Chen, & Jones, 2009). The importance of clear and efficient teaching of literacy through a rich and integrated program requires us to refocus teacher’s literacy practice in our complex life style (Baker, 2004). Teachers started to depend more on using technology while teaching such as in planning their lessons, searching for facts, communicating with their students and learning of new knowledge in the current published journals (Al-Qatari, 2011). The rationale for this research was based on the following reasons: The results of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Unfortunately, Kuwait scored very low in the international TIMSS and PIRLS examinations. Kuwait was ranked 48 with a total of 342 points in TIMSS (Al-Qatari, 2011). The results of Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).In PIRLS examinations related to reading, students of grade 6 from 49 countries participated and Kuwait occupied 46th position with 419 points out of the 49 other countries (Al-Qatari, 2011). Both results extended the concern about the quality of education for the children in Kuwait in the areas of literacy and science. There are many approaches to investigate the low performance of the students. One of the factors plays a major role in students’ performance is the teacher. Teachers are the single greatest influence in a students academic performance. Considering that teachers have to deal with many factors while teaching their subjects: core subject (science), literacy, pedagogy and technology. There was a need to do research to seek answers of how teachers deal with three different factors while teaching science. This research intended to investigate teachers’ understanding and their perceptions about using literacy, technology while teaching science. The goal was to provide a closer view about how science teachers consider, implement, and integrate literacy and technology while teaching science at elementary level. Thus the research questions were: How do science teachers in elementary schools use literacy and technology while teaching science? And what are their attitudes toward using literacy and technology to enrich science education curriculum? Literature Review Science and Literacy Language is a primary part of science and science learning. When scientists and students want to explain phenomena, they use language to make sense of new information and develop new ideas (Baker, 2004). Further, reading and writing are major components of scientific literacy (Norris et al., 2003). The use of language is also integrally involved in the development of concepts (Vygotsky, 1962). There are shared practices in both science and literacy in terms of learning. In learning science, students use the processes of scientific inquiry, such as questioning, hypothesizing, collecting/analyzing data, and writing conclusions which are similar to the literacy methods of purpose setting, expecting, sorting ideas, writing, and comprehending (Baker, 2004; Norris et al., 2003). Research has shown that integrating literacy into content area teaching can lead to enhanced student success in science and language arts. For example, Amaral, Garrison, and Klentschy (2002)concluded that integrating the use of science notebooks in elementary science curriculum resulted in improved student achievement among English language learners in science, writing, reading, and mathematics. In addition, the importance of literacy in science seems to be essential. First, science textbooks are usually having more “statements of ‘fact’” than real representations of the “heart and soul of the scientific enterprise” (Yager, 2004, p. 95).Second, science textbooks often include misrepresentation and overstatements; that can interfere with the development of science concepts (Rice, 2002; Rice and Rainsford, 1996). Third, textbooks represent many experiments as a set of procedures, which turn students into passive learners (Peacock & Gates, 2000). To promote this kind of integration between science and literacy, we need to understand the importance of introducing children to informational text. Recently, researchers have paid significant attention to the absence of scientific texts in the reading area of young children (Baker, 2004). Therefore, many studies started to focus on the integration between science and literacy (Norris et al., 2003).Supplementing science class with extra reading has a positive impact on enhancing students’ learning. For instance, informational texts use a wide range of text structures, such as cause/effect, compare/contrast, and problem/solution. It is good for students to be knowledgeable of these varied text structures. As they do so, they build up their own base of writing strategies (Purcell-Gates, Duke & Martineau, 2007).In addition, informational texts typically communicate information about the world beyond the childs home environment. In specific, reading in science provide opportunities to expand students vocabulary, knowledge and reading achievement (National Reading Panel, 2000). Another study showed that students who received both strategy instruction and extra reading about certain topic were more motivated than students who receive strategy instruction alone (Guthrie, 2004) Technology in Education There has been a revolutionary change in the practice/life style of societies due to the use of technology. The alignment of rapid change and technology calls for a major change in our school curricula in general and science curricula in specific. Although many teachers are using today’s technologies in a creative ways, they remain the exception rather than the rule (Al-Ghanim, 2007). In the United States, the classroom practice in most schools has improved little from that of the mid-20th century (Bakia, Means, Gallagher, Chen, & Jones, 2009).But, national surveys about teacher practices using technology explored an increase in teacher use of technology as an efficiency tool supporting their own work between 2005 and 2007, but there has been no increase in the level of teacher-assignment of technology-based learning activities for students. (Bakia et al., 2009).Technology implementation requires not just funding and resources but also continuing effort. Therefore, to make technology more productive in the class, the educators need to understand the kinds of learning outcomes, situations and the goals behind using technology to make it more productive practice. Science in Elementary In public schools, in Kuwait, students are taught science from first grade to fifth grade (Al-Ghanim, 2007). The six districts have the Ministry of Education provide funding for science labs, school library, and technology (Al-Ghanim, 2007). The department of curriculum and research provide curriculum and textbooks to all public schools in the six districts. Supervisors design tests and assessment plan explain the curriculum and the timeline to teach the textbook. Teachers have to follow the instructions of their supervisors and stick to the curriculum, and textbooks. In a centralized system, teachers are left out with few choices for creativity and less time to integrate literacy and technology into science. Students who perceive solid facts will be less motivated which will affect their understanding and, as a result, their performance will be low (Guthrie, 2004). Conceptual Framework The Technological, Pedagogical, Content knowledge (TPCK) framework builds on Shulman’s (1987, 1986) explains of Pedagogical Content Knowledge to describe how teachers’ understanding of technologies and pedagogical content knowledge interact with one another to produce effective teaching with technology (Pierson, 2001). The idea of TPCK has been around for a while. The creator of the TPCK idea was a brief mention of the triad of content theory (as opposed to pedagogy), and technology in Mishra (1999), though within the context of educational software design. A more specific focus was Pierson (2001) whose work almost exactly anticipated the current diagrammatic conceptualization of TPCK. In the model (see Figure 1), there are three main components of knowledge: Content, Pedagogy, and Technology. They are equally important in terms of interaction. These bodies of knowledge represented as Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Content Knowledge is referred to knowledge about the core subject matter that is to be taught (Shin, 2009).Teachers need to know the science, Language art, or math to teach their own subject and this knowledge of content is of very important for teachers to know. As Shulman (1986) explained; this part should have knowledge of concepts, theories, ideas, and organizational frameworks, knowledge of evidence and proof, and practices toward developing such knowledge. Pedagogical Knowledge is defined as the knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of teaching and learning such as educational purposes, values, and skills (Shin, 2009). In this part teachers should know about: student learning, classroom management, lesson plan development and implementation, and student evaluation (Shin, 2009). And lastly, Technological Knowledge is referred to enable a person to achieve a variety of different tasks using information technology and to develop different ways of achieving a given task (Niess, 2005). This concept of TK does not reach the end, but rather it is as an ongoing process and it keeps developing by time. By simultaneously integrating knowledge of technology, pedagogy and content, TPCK is a form of knowledge that expert teachers bring into play anytime they teach. Each situation meets teachers are a unique blend of these three factors, and; therefore, there is no single technological key that applies for every teacher, or every class. Teacher’s talents have the solution to flexibly implement the three elements of content, pedagogy, and technology and the complex interactions among these elements in specific settings. Thus, teachers need to develop effortlessness and cognitive skills not just in each of these key domains (T, P, and C), but also in the manner in which these domains connect, so that they can be productive for teaching and learning. Figure 1.TPCK Model. In order to answer our research questions, we had to develop certain tools to assess teachers’ use of literacy and technology while teaching science. Our conceptual framework was based on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Method Concept map In order to document and compare conceptual framework, many mixed methods studies have included concept maps (Novak, 1981), mind maps (Buzan, 1974), or other pictorial/diagrammatic representations of the schemata in the mind of the learner, or in this case the teacher. Concept maps are graphical tools for organizing and representing knowledge (Novak &Musonda, 1991). They include concepts and relationships between them are indicated by a connecting line linking two concepts. Words on the line referred to as linking words or linking phrases, specify the relationship between the two concepts (Novak &Caas, 2008). Concept maps were developed in 1972 in the course of Novaks research program at Cornell University where he sought to follow and understand changes in childrens knowledge of science (Novak et al., 1991).During the course of the research effort, it became clear that the concept maps were useful not only to represent the change in children understands of a topic, but they were also an excellent tool for the participating graduate students to express their understanding of their courses. A map provides an innovative means to established quantitative data collection techniques, and allows researchers and participants to reflect on clarification of more analytical qualitative research on technology and literacy. In fact, concept maps have been used in longitudinal research to collect data on how understanding, views, and perceptions can change over time (Kilic, Kaya, &Dogan, 2004) since maps of a conceptual framework are by nature dynamic in the mind of the learner. When a participant is generating a concept map, specific protocol must be followed because the concept map is more specific in structure that a mind map. The concept map production methodology includes a hierarchical presentation of general concepts on top leading to more specific concepts on the bottom; with linking words and directional arrows to show how specific concepts are related and interrelated (Novak et al., 2008). A focus on the structure of concept maps is an integral part of the assessment of these maps by experts, when using the concept map to demonstrate understanding. In scoring concept maps, Novak and Gowin (1984) recommended that the subject matter expert score the maps based on the number of valid propositions, levels of hierarchy, number of branches and cross-links contained in the map. If the participant generates their own list of terms, analysis may take longer, since the initial term lists generated by participants are highly individual. Termed an “embarrassment of riches” (Chenail, 1995, p. 2) due to the detail provided in many concept maps, interpretation can become difficult due to the highly individualized nature of each concept map created. One solution has been to limit maps to one page, or provide a finite list of terms to the participant (Wheeldon, 2007) along with clear instructions and an exemplar map as participants are asked to create their concept maps. Refinements in the scoring of concept maps have included similar structural scoring systems based on the physical characteristics of the maps (Turns, Atman, & Adams, 2000). Some have used sliding scales to score the quality of concepts and propositions within the maps (Rye &Rubba, 2002) or whether participants correctly identified concepts vs. sub-concepts (Bayram, 1995) within the map structure itself. Another scoring system was developed to compare experts to learners based on the convergence of concepts between a novice and expert map (Ruiz-Primo, Shavelson, & Schultz, 2001). It seems there are many different ways to interpret and score concept maps, and these methods are tailored to the purpose of the study as well as the method of data collection. Assessing TPCK based on exemplary concept map The next task was to create an exemplary concept map to use as criterion reference for rubric creation and eventually scoring of the five maps. A team consisting of four veteran science teachers and all with at least 20 years’ experience (each) teaching science at elementary levels came to an agreement on the structure of the exemplary concept map based on the education system in Kuwait. The twelve terms organized into the exemplary concept map, along with a set of appropriate linking words is as follows: The term children literature in science education was a common thread across all scientific disciplines and was deemed most important placing it at the top of the exemplary concept map. Below children literature in science, the terms: school curricula, extra curricula should be connected. In another lower grouping, the terms school library, and e- learning were also linked. At the terminal end in the map are the terms of content knowledge (textbook and workbook), technological knowledge (online games and scientific websites for children), and pedagogical knowledge (glossary, scientific sorties, and picture books). When creating the rubric to score the concept maps, it was decided that both the association between the concepts and organization of the concept map should have equal weight since the list of terms to be organized into the concept map was supplied to the participants. This decision gave the concepts connectivity a score of 12/28 and the organization of the concept map an equal weight of 12/28 points. Since the linking terms were added by the participants themselves, this was deemed of less importance in the overall organization and conceptual framework, and only given a weight of 4/28 points. Figure 2. Exemplary Concept Map Table 1. Rubric Procedure The sample of the study was four experienced science teachers in an elementary level. Researchers contacted six experienced teachers from the six school districts in Kuwait. Only four experienced teachers volunteered to complete the study. The experienced teachers were selected to draw concept maps about how do they view literacy and science and technology together. This study utilized a concept map and its rubric with an in-depth interview approach to have an understanding about teachers usage of literacy and technology while teaching science to elementary students. As a result of participating in this study, the teachers have been interviewed in depth after completion of the concept maps. These in-depth interviews query teachers about their beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, usage of technology in teaching and how they view the science curriculum, as well as some general questions about their teaching assignment and the professional structure of their school and department. Within the context of the written instructions to teachers on creating the concept maps, are specific instructions on how to create concept maps in general as well as a specific example of a concept map that uses a non-science topic. The teacher then creates a concept map using the given terms and sends it in either hard copy or scanned and faxed to the researchers. Data Analysis Table 2 is a summary of the concept maps results, teachers background, and the responses for literacy, and technology integration with science. How do science teachers in elementary schools use literacy and technology while teaching science? And what are their attitudes toward using literacy and technology to enrich science education curriculum? Table 3 Data Analysis Eman Najowa Ghadeer Anood Teachers Background Title Head department Experienced teacher Experienced teacher Head department Major Elementary science education Biology Elementary science education Elementary science education Years of experience 24 15 10 12 Concept Map Score Concept map score 50% 55% 66 % 72 % Teacher response to the in-depth interview Library and extra books Use of school library / updated No No No No Scientific fiction and imagination in science No Yes Yes Yes Source of books On her own On her own On her own On her own Use of technology Use of technology in science Yes Yes Yes Yes Valid educational websites No just Google engine search Yes but most of them are in English and she translate them Yes but need to translate Google engine and some English websites Source of Technology Teachers’ own tools Teachers’ own tools Teachers’ own tools Teachers’ own tools Students use technology while learning science All the time All the time All the time All the time Enrich school Curriculum School textbook support resources Internet Teachers guide Teachers guide and internet Internet Enrich school curriculum with extra curricula resources Very limited due to the overloaded school curriculum Department scientific discussion/ and enrich students with new updated information Update herself with all new ideas about science and help in teaching in class Help teachers and mentees in her department, enrich students with extra facts about science In the in-depth interview teachers were very expressive about their situation as teachers. They reflect their own experience about teaching science. Researchers decided to pair them into two categories: head department teachers, and experienced teachers. Head Department Teachers Teachers discussed some barriers that prevent them from creativity. They all agreed that the science curriculum is very developed, but there are many topics to cover. This issue leaves limited space for extra curriculum or implementing technology, or integrating literacy into science as they all responded. Eman elaborated about the administrative loads that prevent her from doing any extra activity with her students. She said that she missed the days where she used to do more activities such as readings with her students while teaching before becoming a head department. Her time is split into administrative work and mentoring teachers, and the rest for teaching her own classes "with the endless curriculum" as she described. Eman also finds school resources are outdated. She said: "School library, for example, has old books, colorless and not very attractive to children. I have to buy my own books and some equipment too. I use my own I-pad to show some pictures to my students" Anood also suffers from the lack of time as a head department. She also suffers from the lack of support in terms of school resources. Anood said that the school administration should focus on enriching school with more developed sources that are appropriate to nowadays life style. She mentioned materials that are needed for each classroom such as smart boards, I-pads, and projectors. Anood finds it easy to integrate literacy into science if technology is available. She said there are many barriers such as: "Books in the library are old; I had to build my own library with the support of my science teachers in the department. We use our own technology… the use of technology is limited still because the school curriculum has many topics, and I cannot manage too many things. You know there are experiments, worksheets, tests, and grading... it is not easy to do all of these things besides my administrative work." Experienced Teachers Najwa finds the technology and the use of internet becoming the most powerful source for both teachers and students; however, the school curriculum is still dense with many comprehensive topics. Najwa also explained that teachers are very cautious in terms of integrating literacy into science because supervisors from the districts usually want teachers to stick to the curriculum and teach from the textbooks only. She also said that she brings her own laptop and Wi-Fi to school for both teaching and preparing her own work. Najwa elaborated also that there is only one desktop to use in the science department, and she said that she would not waste her time for that "useless desktop." Students are de-motivated, and they want modern methods that speak to them. They keep asking me why are we doing this experiment and due to the lack of time I explain a little bit to them … if I have more time I would read with them or ask them to use the internet to search for a topic, and even the internet source most of them are in English language. The school needs more Arabic resources that students are familiar with… I have no problems translating stuff, but children are limited with few resources if they are going to use Google or App Store." Ghadeers"nightmare" as she expressed was the supervisors. She said that supervisors want us to teach the textbook as a "Holy book." She mentioned that there is a gap between supervisors generation and students. Students have changed due to the technology. Students like to search for facts rather than reading about the whole topic. "If I am going to teach from the textbook, all the children will be bored. I believe every teacher should have her own touch for each class she teaches. I have noticed that many of my students have their own I-pads, and I requested from the parents to allow them to use it in the classroom. We downloaded some Apps from the App store and it saved time and children were motivated to use technology in learning. For my books, I travel to Dubai to buy books from there… book resources are very limited in school and the whole country too. Reading is not a favorite thing for children nowadays. They want easy facts from the web Discussion and Conclusion In this research, the focus was about assessing teacher integration of literacy and technology into science How do science teachers in elementary schools use literacy and technology while teaching science? And what are their attitudes toward using literacy and technology to enrich science education curriculum? Concept Map Assessment The concept map scores were very low. The highest score was 70%. We cannot generalize based on assessing concept maps of four teachers; however, this result could tell us something about them. Teachers might be limited to teach the school curriculum which could limit their vision about how to integrate science with other topics such as literacy. The school paradigm is shifted toward the curriculum and might leave teachers with fewer options on extra curriculum and other variable while teaching science in schools. Interview Outcomes It seems that the school curriculum is not parallel with technology which could cause a barrier to teachers to keep up and motivate students to do science. Libraries are outdated and needs a major reforming Teachers need more space to add their own touch of creativity while teaching their classes A mile long inch deep curriculum will not teach students everything about science. Giving the teachers, the space with fewer topics might help to teach science. Recommendations To integrate technology and literacy in Kuwait, their need is an overhaul of the educational curriculum to enable the teacher has flexibility in using technology while teaching. Moreover, the structure of analysis of the program ought to change and empower teachers to teach what is relevant to the student at any given time. This is because technology keeps on changing, and it would be expensive to keep changing the curriculum. Lastly, the school systems are supposed to adopt the technology to ease the difficulties of buying and preserving books. Technology does provide a platform where student and teachers can access current edition online through e-learning. References Al-Ghanim, K. (2007) ‘Study: Students failure at public schools in Kuwait costing the Country huge money’, Kuwait News Agency KUNA, Retrieved (December, 2013). http://www.kuna.net.kw/newsagenciespublicsite/ArticleDetails.aspx?languag=ar&id=1861893. Al-Qatari, H. (2011) ‘Kuwait facing national educational disaster’, Tribune Business News, Washington. Amaral, O. M., Garrison, L., &Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners Increase achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 213-240. Baker, L. (2004). Reading comprehension and science inquiry: Metacognitive Connections. In W.Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science Instruction, 239-257. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Bakia, M., Means, B., Gallagher, L., Chen, E., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of the Enhancing Education through Technology Program: Final report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Bayram, S. (1995). The effectiveness of concept and software mapping for Representing student data and process schema in science. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Pittsburg, PA. Bull, G., &Kajder, S. (2004). Digital storytelling in the language arts classroom. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(4), 46–49. Buzan, T. (1974). Use your head. London: BBC Books. Chenail, R. J. (1995). Presenting qualitative data. The Qualitative Report, 2(3). Retrieved (January 2014), from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-3/presenting.html Foy, P., Arora, A., &Stanco, G.M. (Eds.). (2013). TIMSS 2011 user guide for the international database. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36 (1), 1-28. Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116– 127. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003 Kilic, Z., Kaya, O. N., &Dogan, A. (2004). Effects of students’ pre- and post- laboratory concept maps on students’ attitudes toward chemistry laboratory in university general chemistry. Paper presented at the18th International Conference on Chemical Education, Istanbul, Turkey. Mishra, P. (1999/2004). The role of abstraction in scientific illustration: Implications for pedagogy. Journal of Visual Literacy. 19(2), 139-158. To be reprinted in C. Handa (Ed.). Visual rhetoric in a digital world: A critical sourcebook. (pp. 177-194). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007 Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education 2214-2226. Moller, K. J., & Hug, B. (2006). Connections across literacy and science instruction in early childhood education: Interviewing disciplines in pre-service education. In J.V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, C. M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, & B. Malocj(Eds.), 55th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Oak Creek, Wisconsin: National Reading Conference. 195–211 National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction [on-line]. Retrieved( February, 2014) : http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.cfm. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523. Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240. Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Cavagnetto, A., Akkus, R., &Gunel, M. (2009). Pedagogy, implementation and professional development for teaching science literacy: How students and teacher know and learn. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 169-188).Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Novak, J. D., &Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning. Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Novak, J. D., &Caas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them (Tech. Rep.). Pensacola: IHMC Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Novak, J. D., &Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Novak, J. D., &Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153. Peacock, A. & Gates, S. (2000). Newly qualified primary teachers’ perceptions of the roles of text materials in teaching science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 18(2), 155-171. Pierson, M. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical experts. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(5). Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N., & Martineau, J.A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific texts: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42 (1), 8-45. Rice and Rainsford (1996). Using children’s trade books to teach science: Boon or boondoggle. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO. Read More