Change of Teacher Beliefs,But Not Practices,Following Integration of Immersive Virtual Environment in the Classroom

Abstract

Immersive virtual environments (IVEs) model scientific inquiry practices and can provide rich learning experiences for students. However, the teacher is an essential component of how the students engage with the technology, as they embed the IVE into everyday teaching and learning. Ideally, classroom pedagogies would reflect the scientific practices modeled in the IVE to the best extent possible. In this case study, we explore how one teacher enacted authentic scientific practices after 3 years of IVE implementations plus participation in the corresponding professional development (PD) experience. Although the teacher believed that the inquiry practices modeled in the IVE and the PD were an important part of his teaching, these beliefs were not transferred into practice. Our findings suggest that PD should include opportunities for teachers to reflect on their own practice integrating technology and consider external factors contributing to pedagogical change beyond PD.

Keywords

case study immersive virtual environments mixed methods professional development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barab, S., Jackson, C., & Piekarsky, E. (2006). Embedded professional development: Learning through enacting innovation. In C. Dede (Ed.), Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods (pp. 155–174). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Barab

Thomas

Dodge

Carteaux

Tuzun

(2005) Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development 53(1): 86–107.

Blank, R., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics & science. Results from survey of enacted curriculum project (Final Report). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officer.

Bodzin

Beerer

K. M.

(2003) Promoting inquiry-based science instruction: The validation of the Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR). Journal of Elementary Science Education 15: 39–49.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Chan, C. K., & Yang, Y. (2018). Developing scientific inquiry in technology-enhanced learning environments. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen & K-W. Lai (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 161–180).

Clark

Tanner-Smith

E. E.

Killingsworth

S. S.

(2016) Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 86(1): 79–122.

Clarke

Hollingsworth

(2002) Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(8): 947–967.

DeBoer

(1991) A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice, New York, NY: ERIC.

10.

Dede

Grotzer

T. A.

Kamarainen

Metcalf

(2017) EcoXPT: Designing for deeper learning through experimentation in an immersive virtual ecosystem. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 20(4): 166–178.

11.

Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., Javitz, H. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort.

12.

Ertmer

Ottenbreit-Leftwich

A. T.

Sadik

Sendurur

(2012) Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education 59(2): 423–435.

13.

Fishman, B., Dede, C., & Means, B. (2016). Teaching and technology: New tools for new times. In D. Gitomer, & C. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1269–1334). Washington, D.C.: American Education Research Association.

14.

Fletcher

Tobias

(2011) Computer games and instruction, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

15.

Grotzer

Metcalf

Tutwiler

Kamarainen

Thompson

Dede

(2017) Teaching the systems aspects of epistemologically authentic experimentation in ecosystems through immersive virtual worlds, San Antonio, TX: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

16.

Guskey

(1986) Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher 15(5): 5–12.

17.

Hao

Liu

von Davier

Kyllonen

(2015) Assessing collaborative problem solving with simulation based tasks, Gothenburg, Sweden: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

18.

Harris

B. M.

(1980) Improving staff performance through in-service education, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

19.

Jiao, H., & Lissitz, R. W. (2018). Technology enhanced innovative assessment : Development, modeling, and scoring from an interdisciplinary perspective (Vols. 1–1 online resource). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1535637.

20.

Ketelhut

D. J.

(2006) Do students with higher self-efficacy exhibit greater and more diverse scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in “River City”, a multi-user virtual environment, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

21.

Ketelhut

D. J.

(2007) The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in River City, a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology 16(1): 99–111.

22.

Ketelhut

D. J.

Nelson

B. C.

Clarke

Dede

(2010) A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology 41(1): 56–68.

23.

Ketelhut

D. J.

Nelson

Schifter

Kim

(2013) Improving science assessments by situating them in a virtual environment. Education Sciences 3(2): 172–192.

24.

Ketelhut

D. J.

Schifter

C. C.

(2011) Teachers and game-based learning: Improving understanding of how to increase efficacy of adoption. Computers & Education 56(2): 539–546.

25.

Ketelhut

D. J.

Tutwiler

M. S.

(2017) Science Learning and Inquiry with Technology, Abingdon, England: Taylor & Francis.

26.

Kim

M. K.

Lee

Spector

J. M.

DeMeester

(2013) Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education 29: 76–85.

27.

Kolb

(2012) Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies 3(1): 83.

28.

Lawless

Pellegrino

J. W.

(2007) Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research 77(4): 575–614.

29.

Liu, L., Hao, J., von Davier, A. A., Kyllonen, P., & Zapata-Rivera, J.-D. (2016). A tough nut to crack: Measuring collaborative problem solving. In Y. Rosen, S. Ferrera, & M. Mosharraf (Eds.), Handbook of research on technology tools for real-world skill development (pp. 344–359). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

30.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In J. Luft, R. Bell, & Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 121–134). Chicago, IL.

31.

McNeill

K. L.

Krajcik

J. S.

(2011) Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science : The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing, Boston, MA: Pearson.

32.

Metcalf, S. J., Kamarainen, A. M., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2013). Teacher perceptions of the practicality and effectiveness of immersive ecological simulations as classroom curricula. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments (IJVPLE), 4(3), 66–77.

33.

Mikropoulos

T. A.

Natsis

(2011) Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education 56(3): 769–780.

34.

Mishra

Koehler

M. J.

(2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 108(6): 1017.

35.

Mislevy, R. J., Corrigan, S., Oranje, A., DiCerbo, K., Bauer, M. I., von Davier, A., & John, M. (2016). Psychometric considerations in game-based assessment. Technology and testing: Improving educational and psychological measurement, pp. 23-48.

36.

National Academies of Sciences and Medicine (2018) How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

37.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2014). Technology & engineering literacy (TEL). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.

38.

National Research Council (1996) National science education standards, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

39.

National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.

40.

Roschelle

Shechtman

Tatar

Hegedus

Hopkins

Empson

Gallagher

L. P.

(2010) Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal 47(4): 833–878.

41.

Saldaña

(2016) The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

42.

Shulman

L. S.

(1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15(2): 4–14.

43.

Tutwiler, M. S. (2014). Trends in the salience of data collected in a multi-user virtual environment: An exploratory study. (Unpublished dissertation). Harvard Graduate School of Education.

44.

U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan update. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov.

45.

Wouters

Van Nimwegen

Van Oostendorp

Van Der Spek

E. D.

(2013) A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology 105(2): 249.

46.

Wouters

Van Oostendorp

(2017) Instructional techniques to facilitate learning and motivation of serious games, New York, NY: Springer.