Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using Technology to Facilitate Differentiated High School Science Instruction

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This qualitative investigation explored the beliefs and practices of one secondary science teacher, Diane, who differentiated instruction and studied how technology facilitated her differentiation. Diane was selected based on the results of a previous study, in which data indicated that Diane understood how to design and implement proactively planned, flexible, engaging instructional activities in response to students’ learning needs better than the other study participants. Data for the present study included 3 h of semi-structured interview responses, 37.5 h of observations of science instruction, and other artifacts such as instructional materials. This variety of data allowed for triangulation of the evidence. Data were analyzed using a constant comparative approach. Results indicated that technology played an integral role in Diane’s planning and implementation of differentiated science lessons. The technology-enhanced differentiated lessons employed by Diane typically attended to students’ different learning profiles or interest through modification of process or product. This study provides practical strategies for science teachers beginning to differentiate instruction, and recommendations for science teacher educators and school and district administrators. Future research should explore student outcomes, supports for effective formative assessment, and technology-enhanced readiness differentiation among secondary science teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bain, A., & Parkes, R. (2006). Curriculum authoring tools and inclusive classroom teaching practice: a longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 177–189. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00527.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536–553. doi:10.1002/sce.1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., & Trundle, K. C. (2008). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 346–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R.L., Maeng, J.L., & Binns, I.C. (2013). Learning in context: technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 348–379. doi:10.1002/tea.21075.

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1966). On knowing. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunce, D. (2001). Does Piaget still have anything to say to chemists? Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1107. doi:10.1021/ed078p1107.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., & Abd-Hamid, N. (2012). Technology use in the science instruction (TUSI): technology and science education reform. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 572–588. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9415-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daws, N., & Singh, B. (1996). Formative assessment: to what extent is its potential to enhance pupils’ science being realized? School Science Review, 77(281), 93–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daws, N., & Singh, B. (1999). Formative assessment strategies in secondary science. School Science Review, 80, 71–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, J., & Kubasko, D. (2007). Digital microscopes: enhancing collaboration and engagement in science classrooms with information technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7, 279–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doubet, K. (2007). Teacher fidelity and student response to a model of differentiation as implemented in one high school. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3283287).

  • Downes, D. (2006). Designing evaluation tools for the differentiated instruction staff development initiative. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3247697).

  • Dugger, K. (2008). Teachers perceptions of differentiating instruction in a sixth grade science class of diverse learners in a Georgia urban school district. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3297017).

  • Feldman, A., & Capobianco, B. (2008). Teacher learning of technology enhanced formative assessment. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 17(1), 82–99. doi:10.1007/s10956-007-9084-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers to use technology: guidelines for science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1, 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: an introduction (8th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M. (2008). Between constructivism and connectedness. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 322–331. doi:10.1177/0022487108321379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 25–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpin-Brunt, S. (2007). Differentiated instructional practices: a case study of science teachers in a suburban middle school setting. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3269072).

  • Higgins, T. E., & Spitulnik, M. W. (2008). Supporting teachers’ use of technology in science instruction through professional development: a literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 511–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irving, K., Sanalan, V. & Shirley, M. (2009). Physical science connected classrooms: case studies. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(3), 247-275. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/27079.

  • International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2008). National education technology standards. Retrieved October 2011 from: http://www.iste.org/standards.aspx

  • Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: an emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91, 1010–1030. doi:10.1002/sce.20219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., Feldman, A., & Beatty, I. (2009, April). Teachers’ implementation of a classroom response system for formative assessment in secondary science and mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA. Retrieved from: http://srri.umass.edu/publications/perg

  • Lee, H., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maeng, J.L. & Bell, R.L. (2015). Differentiating science instruction: secondary science teachers’ practices. International Journal of Science Education. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1064553.

  • Maeng, J.L., Mulvey, B.K., Smetana, L.K., & Bell, R.L. (2013). Preservice teachers’ TPACK: using technology to support inquiry instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 838–857. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9434-z.

  • Mastereopieri, M., Scruggs, T., Norland, J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E., & Conors, N. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. The Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 130–137. doi:10.1177/00224669060400030101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Science teachers’ diagnosis and understanding of students’ preconceptions. Science Education, 86, 849–867. doi:10.1002/sce.10092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, M., & Omdal, S. (2007). Effects of tiered instruction on academic performance in a secondary science course. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 424–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg, J. J., McDermott, P., & Martin, G. (1998). Changes in pedagogy: a qualitative result of teaching heterogeneous classes. Teacher and TeacherEducation, 14, 633–642. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00013-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scalise, K., Timms, M., Morrjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1050–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpkins, P., Masteropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2009). Differentiated curriculum enhancements in inclusive fifth-grade science classes. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 300–308. doi:10.1177/0741932508321011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijoin, K., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profiles in academically diverse classrooms: a review of the literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2, 119–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, C. A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe, M., Nunes, N., Mebane, S., Scalise, K., & Claesgens, J. (2007). Chemistry forall, instead of chemistry just for the elite: lessons learned from detracked chemistry classrooms. Science Education, 95, 683–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, F., Smeaton, P., & Burns, T. (2004). Action research in the secondary science classroom: student response to differentiated, alternative assessment. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 89–104.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Virginia, Curry School of Education, Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Jennifer L. Maeng

Authors
  1. Jennifer L. Maeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer L. Maeng.

Ethics declarations

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained prior to beginning this investigation. Participation in this investigation was voluntary and participants signed IRB-approved informed consent agreements prior to participating.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix A

Beliefs About and Implementation of Differentiated Instruction Interview Protocol (Based on Downes 2006)

This interview is being conducted to ascertain science teachers’ beliefs about differentiated instruction, how they plan for differentiated instruction, and their perception of student outcomes from differentiated lessons.

  1. 1.

    What factors influence whether or not you decide to differentiate a particular lesson. Probe: How you decide when to differentiate a lesson? How do you know what parts of the lesson to differentiate?

  2. 2.

    Do you include formative assessment into your lessons? Probe: Can you give an example of how you incorporate it into lessons and lesson plans? How do you use the feedback you obtain from students to inform instruction?

  3. 3.

    When you are planning units and lessons and thinking about state standards, what do you think about when you select what standards will be taught in which order? What thoughts go through your mind when you consider how to relate the SOLs to understandings of your content so that students learn in meaningful ways?

  4. 4.

    Describe how you go about planning a differentiated lesson.

  5. 5.

    Describe a lesson you taught that did a good job challenging all of the students in the classroom. Probes: How did you design the lesson? What instructional strategies did you incorporate? Why? What made it challenging for all of the students? How did you know that all students were appropriately challenged?

  6. 6.

    When you differentiate instruction, do you notice differences in students’ academic achievement? Probes: If yes, what changes? If no, why don’t you think you’ve observed improvement?

  7. 7.

    Has differentiating instruction impacted students from disadvantaged backgrounds? Probe: If so, how? If not, why don’t you think so?

  8. 8.

    Has differentiating instruction impacted your special education students? Probe: If so, how? If not, why don’t you think so?

  9. 9.

    Has differentiating instruction impacted your gifted students? Probe: If so, how? If not, why don’t you think so?

  10. 10.

    How is student engagement different when you differentiate instruction as opposed to a more traditional lesson? Probe: How does differentiated instruction impact student motivation?

  11. 11.

    Explain what student behavior and discipline are like in your class when you differentiate instruction.

  12. 12.

    Is there anything else you’d like to tell me about what you think about differentiated instruction, its impact on your students’ learning, or how you plan differentiated lessons?

  13. 13.

    Since I am interested in observing a unit in which you use many and various differentiation strategies, which unit that you teach during the fall semester would be the best for me to observe? Probe if this is later in the semester: Since an important component of differentiating is developing a classroom community, can you let me know times earlier in the semester that I come observe you to get a feel for how you develop a classroom community?

Appendix B

Planning for Differentiated Lessons Interview Protocol (Informed by Downes 2006)

This interview is being conducted to further understand your intentions in the lesson I just observed and how you thought about planning this lesson.

General:

  1. 1.

    What were your objectives for this lesson?

  2. 2.

    Do you think your students met these objectives? How do you know?

  3. 3.

    What do you think worked well when you taught this lesson?

  4. 4.

    What didn’t go as well as you would have liked?

  5. 5.

    What would you change next time you teach this lesson?

Planning:

  1. 6.

    Do you consider any of this lesson to be differentiated? Probes: If so, what parts? In what respect is it differentiated? If not, why don’t you consider it to be differentiated? If they say no and I think yes, what about when you….

  2. 7.

    Why did you choose to differentiate this lesson?

  3. 8.

    What factors influenced how you differentiated this lesson?

  4. 9.

    What goes through your mind when you decide where to position yourself during various activities?

  5. 10.

    When planning this lesson, what factors did you consider decide what classroom configuration (individual, pairs, groups) would be most effective?

  6. 11.

    What role did formative assessment from previous lessons play in how you developed this lesson?

  7. 12.

    When planning for this lesson, what factors did you consider so that students’ readiness levels, interests, or learning profiles were highlighted?

  8. 13.

    How did you design this lesson? What were you thinking about while planning this lesson? Probes: What instructional strategies did you incorporate? Why? What resources did you use? What went through your mind regarding how the activities/materials/instructional strategies you selected would help all of your students meet the objectives for this lesson?

  9. 14.

    When you were considering the various academic levels of your students, how did you determine whether or not the lesson would appropriately challenge all of your students?

  10. 15.

    I noticed you included _______ (evidence of formative assessment) in the lesson. How will you use this information?

  11. 16.

    When you were thinking about the various activities that students would complete, how did you decide whether or not the various activities led to the same goals and objectives?

  12. 17.

    How would this lesson look differently if it wasn’t differentiated?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maeng, J.L. Using Technology to Facilitate Differentiated High School Science Instruction. Res Sci Educ 47, 1075–1099 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9546-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9546-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation