Developing teachers’ pedagogical practice in teaching science lessons with mobile phones

This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 04 October 2013, At: 13:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Technology, Pedagogy and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe20

Developing teachers’ pedagogicalpractice in teaching science lessonswith mobile phonesT.M.S.S.K.Y. Ekanayake a b & J.M. Wishart aa Graduate School of Education , University of Bristol , Bristol , UKb Department of Education , University of Peradeniya ,Peradeniya , Sri LankaPublished online: 22 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: T.M.S.S.K.Y. Ekanayake & J.M. Wishart , Technology, Pedagogy and Education(2013): Developing teachers’ pedagogical practice in teaching science lessons with mobile phones,Technology, Pedagogy and Education, DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2013.810366

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.810366

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.810366

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Developing teachers’ pedagogical practice in teaching sciencelessons with mobile phones

T.M.S.S.K.Y. Ekanayakea,b* and J.M. Wisharta

aGraduate School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; bDepartment ofEducation, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

(Received 7 September 2011; final version received 21 February 2013)

This paper presents the findings of an investigation carried out in Sri Lanka toexplore how mobile phones can support science teachers’ pedagogical practicesthroughout the teaching cycle of planning, teaching and evaluation. Data werecollected using observation supported by audio and video recordings from bothcontinuing professional development workshops where a group of teachersplanned four science lessons that integrated mobile phones and the subsequentimplementation of those lessons. Thematic network analysis, carried out on thedata with the help of NVivo8 qualitative analysis software, showed how mobilephones were used and the issues involved. It concluded that mobile phones cansupport science teaching in a variety of ways, in particular with communicationduring planning lessons, with relating subject knowledge to authentic locationsand activities during teaching and with image and data capture to supportassessment and post-lesson reflection. The additional pedagogical practices andknowledge base required when integrating mobile phones into science lessonsare discussed in the light of Shulman’s original model.

Keywords: pedagogy; mobile phones; science; teaching and learning

Introduction

Pedagogy is often referred to as the practice (or the art, science or craft) ofteaching. However, Watkins and Mortimore (1999) pointed out that the boundariesof the concept seem unclear, making the term ‘pedagogy’ difficult to define. IndeedSiraj-Blatchford, Sylva, Muttock, Gilden, and Bell (2002) noted the way the term‘pedagogy’ varies with different educational philosophies, values, and according todifferent assumptions that are held about learning, child development, appropriatestyles of instruction and curricula. It can help to set pedagogy firmly within thecontext of school-based education practice, as Alexander (1992) did when heidentified pedagogy as one of seven interrelated aspects (content, context, pedagogy,management, children, society and knowledge) of his ‘conceptual framework foreducational practice’ intended to define a teacher’s educational practice as a whole.In this model he includes teaching methods and pupil organisation within pedagogicprocesses. In contrast, following a more process-oriented view of pedagogy,Shulman (1987) introduced a model describing the pedagogical processes that ateacher follows and focusing on their pedagogical reasoning and actions. Viewing

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 2013http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.810366

� 2013 Association for Information Technology in Teacher Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

from the teacher’s perspective, Shulman noted that the teaching process involves acycle of activities: comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation, reflectionand new comprehension, where the teacher’s pedagogical actions and reasons playimportant roles. Underpinning this cycle is the knowledge base of an experiencedteacher which deals with the purpose of education and the methods and strategiesof educating. Considering the process of teaching, Shulman highlighted two catego-ries of knowledge that the teacher should possess. One is ‘general pedagogicalknowledge’, which he referred to as ‘those broad principles and strategies of class-room management and organisation that appear to transcend subject matter’ (p. 8).The other is ‘pedagogical content knowledge’, which represents ‘the blending ofcontent and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, orissues are organised, represented and adapted according to the interest and abilitiesof learners, and presented for instruction’ (p. 8). In their examination of thepedagogy of teaching with information and communications technology (ICT),Webb and Cox (2004) noted that Shulman’s model provides a description of theprocesses that teachers engage in when they are planning, teaching and evaluatingtheir lessons and pointed out that, for teachers using ICT in their lessons, reasoningduring these processes must include knowledge of how the technology can affordlearning opportunities for their students. Angeli and Valanides (2005) consideredthat such ICT-related pedagogical content knowledge constitutes a special amalgamof several sources within the teachers’ knowledge base including ‘pedagogicalknowledge, subject area knowledge, and knowledge of students, knowledge ofenvironmental context and ICT knowledge’ (p. 294). ICT knowledge comprisesknowing how to operate a computer, knowing how to use software tools and abouttheir affordances. Others have integrated ICT knowledge with Shulman’s domainsof content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical contentknowledge to develop the idea of technological pedagogical content knowledge(TPACK) (Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007).

However, the TPACK model does not fully represent the knowledge develop-ment process involved in Shulman’s analysis of pedagogical reasoning. This paperfocuses on the pedagogical processes carried out by teachers during the practice ofteaching in order to explore if and how science teachers’ pedagogical practiceschange when integrating mobile phones in science teaching. In particular itaddresses the entire teaching cycle from planning, through teaching to evaluatingand, as such, Shulman’s (1987) process-based model is deemed the most helpful.

In general, teaching is initiated by some form of ‘text’, a textbook, a syllabus,or an actual piece of material that the teacher wishes their students to understand.Then the teacher adds variety and examples, simulations, dialogue, demonstrationsand so on into what is to be taught to students. According to Shulman (1987), theprocess of changing the ‘text’ to the final outcome (which provides the subjectcontent and a range of other attributes a student should possess for learning) goesthrough a cycle of stages, namely: comprehension, transformation, instruction,evaluation, reflection, followed by new comprehension where the cycle will beginagain for another teaching episode.

In the comprehension stage, a teacher should understand the subject content andthe relationship of an idea (related to that content) to the other ideas within thesame subject and ideas in other subjects. Furthermore, a teacher should understandthe purposes of teaching in terms of achieving the educational goals andaccomplishing a range of student achievements in general.

2 T.M.S.S.K.Y. Ekanayake and J.M. Wishart

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

In the transformation stage, the teacher formulates the material available to him/her into a form that suits his/her own understanding of the subject. The teacher willincorporate alternative ways of representing subject material to students usinganalogies, metaphors, examples, demonstrations and simulations and formulate thecontent to be taught to a more concrete set of instructions. Finally, the material thatwas developed is checked against the characteristics of the students (ability, gender,language, culture, motivation, prior knowledge and skills) and then tailored to suitthe students in a single classroom.

In the instruction stage, different teaching acts ranging from organising andmanaging a classroom, to explaining a subject matter or an idea, presentingexplanations clearly, assigning and checking work, and interacting with students.This is really the execution stage of the lesson where the teacher’s pedagogy playsa crucial role.

Assessment involves continuous assessment of students’ understanding ormisunderstanding and more formal evaluation methods. In the reflection stage theteacher looks back and evaluates his or her own teaching method, models andstrategies that were used and reviews the events, emotions and the accomplishments.

Finally, at the new comprehension stage the teacher arrives at a new beginningarising from reflection on the teaching that he/she has done. The teacher achievesnew comprehension of both the purpose and the subject to be taught, of thestudents and also of the process of pedagogy.

Using mobile phones in the classroom is likely to involve new processes withinand outside the six interrelated processes described in Shulman’s (1987) model andknowledge that Shulman does not consider in his original findings. Therefore, in thispaper the additional processes and knowledge associated with teaching and learningof science using mobile phones were investigated. For the purposes of this study, theactivities that Shulman described in his model as comprehension and transformationare categorised as planning, instruction is categorised as implementation and theevaluation of learning, reflection and new comprehension are categorised together asevaluation.

Previous research

Studies based on the use of mobile devices in teaching and learning in science havebeen carried out worldwide. Their findings alert us to the potential of mobilephones to support teachers in science teaching and learning. In this section theavailable literature is reviewed to shed light on teachers’ pedagogical practicesduring the three stages of teaching a lesson using mobile devices: lesson planning,implementation and evaluation.

There are only limited studies that provide evidence for the use of mobiledevices during the planning activities of lessons. In a study reported by Wishart,Ramsden, and McFarlane (2007), using an online survey of 14 trainee scienceteachers, it was reported that personal digital assistants (PDAs) supported the traineeteachers in lesson planning activities by enabling them to share their ideas andtemplates, to obtain help through the course virtual learning environment and todownload reference material such as e-books or course handbooks. However, areview of the lessons learnt from similar early small-scale explorations of usingmobile devices in schools, published by Futurelab (Faux, McFarlane, Roche, &Facer, 2006), offers useful advice for those considering employing handheld

Technology, Pedagogy and Education 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

technologies for teaching and learning. Faux et al. highlighted the importance ofteachers’ understanding of how to use the mobile device as a teaching and learningtool to meet the goals of the lesson. For example, they said, ‘when it is, and is not,appropriate to use the technology and might usefully include consideration of waysin which technical difficulties might hinder classroom practice and how this can beavoided’. (p. 3) Moreover they point out several recommendations that are impor-tant for educators to consider during the lesson planning stage. These include:

(0) to be clear about the exact learning goals that they expect to achieve usinghandheld technologies.

(1) not attempt to use handheld technologies in all lessons; It is more likely thatthere are particular activities which are appropriate for their use.

(2) to be aware that all students will not benefit from using handheldtechnologies at all times and that some may prefer more conventional activi-ties. (p. 4)

It was found that a majority of the studies reported in the literature used thedifferent functions of mobile phones in the implementation stage of lessons. Itneeds to be borne in mind though that most of these are exploratory pilot studieswhose findings have not been widely replicated. However, they alert us to the widevariety of uses that can be made of mobile phones and signal the potential ofmobile phones to support teachers across a range of pedagogical practices.

For example Hartnell-Young and Heym (2008) reported a study on a series ofsecondary-level science lessons in three schools in the United Kingdom (UK), whereteachers actively engaged the students in science experiments through the use of thestudents’ own mobile phones. In one school the teacher asked students to use mobilephone cameras on a regular basis to capture evidence of experiments into plantgrowth. According to the authors, the images that were taken during experimentshelped students to accurately record physical observations and thus enabled them toensure ‘scientific validity’ of their data. This also enabled teachers to encouragestudents to review their material and to reflect on the evidence over time. Benta andCremene (2004) took a different focus in their pilot study which focused on thecommunication functions of mobile phones and found they can support teaching byincreasing the variety and frequency of interactions in the classroom. In this studyinteractions among 10 students (student–student and student–teacher) through ShortMessaging Service (SMS) and Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) on mobilephones were used to identify a plant in their biology lesson. The system provided amultimedia chat platform to encourage discussions and image exchange with theteacher and fellow students. Furthermore, students could access an onlineencyclopaedia (a service located on the server) where they could send an image of aplant to obtain information on the specified species.

Earlier studies used a variety of handheld technologies including PDAs ratherthan phones and which have most often been deployed to support fieldwork inscience. For example, Vahey and Crawford (2002) reported an experimental studywhere the teacher used sensing probes connected to handheld computers in ascience lesson with a group of high school students to collect both on-site andlaboratory data to determine the water quality of a river. Using these instrumentsstudents measured pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, nitrate and phosphateconcentration, turbidity, total solids and biochemical oxygen demands using their


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

probes at different points along the river. Thus, having the mobile devices supportedteachers’ pedagogical practice by bringing authentic data from the outside worldinto the classroom. Woodgate, Fraser, Crellin, and Gower (2008) reported anotherfield-based study that emphasises the potential of having GPS on mobile phones.Students (ages 13–15) working in small groups were loaned mobile sensors tocollect scientific data in their local area. They collected data on parameters such ascarbon monoxide, sound and temperature and used GPS data to record the locationof their findings. On their return to the classroom, their data were downloaded to aPC. These data were then visualised in Google Earth or Google Maps and uploadedto a dedicated website along with associated material created by the students toshare the findings with students and teachers in other project schools. Thus in thisstudy mobile phones enabled students to engage with the activity and to collect,visualise and discuss their own scientific data more effectively.

In another small-scale study Wishart et al. (2007) reported that trainee teachersfound PDAs were most useful for managing teaching and learning, for exampleusing the calendar to manage schedules and also making notes. Furthermore,specialist software such as Tiny Red Book supported the teacher trainees withattendance tracking and a place to record students’ behaviour.

Mobile devices have been found to support the teacher in assessing learningtoo, Roschelle, William, Yarnall, Shechtman, and Tatar (2004) highlighted their usefor formative assessments in science. Based on an analysis of observations andinterviews (with district leaders, teachers and principals of elementary, middle andhigh schools) within the District of Beaufort County in the United States, theyreported that even simple activities such as beaming checklists between teachers’and students’ mobile devices helped teachers to assess students’ progress on anassignment or in a lab class. More recently, in the UK, methods were transferredsuccessfully to the school science context which were first developed in an investi-gation involving Year 10 students from 12 schools across England where PDAswith cameras were found to be effective in capturing students’ progress during adesign technology project and in enabling learners to create online e-portfolios oftheir performance for teacher, peer and examiner assessment (Kimbell, 2012).

The studies reported above discuss the teachers’ pedagogical practices relatingto the use of mobile devices in science teaching in planning and in teaching alesson but no study could be found which reports the teacher’s pedagogicalpractices relating to the use of mobile devices in science teaching throughout theentire teaching cycle. The purpose of this paper is to present such a study carriedout to investigate the pedagogical innovations and knowledge base requiredthroughout the entire pedagogical cycle (planning, implementation and evaluation)when harnessing the potential of mobile phones in teaching and learning science.

This paper is structured as follows. First, the background to the study carriedout in Sri Lanka is described. Then, an overview of methods is provided includingdata collection and data analysis. Thirdly, findings are outlined while discussingthem in relation to the literature and then, conclusions are drawn. Finally,limitations of the study are identified and future work in this area is suggested.

Methods used for the study

This study was carried out with a purposively selected group of 18 Sri Lankanscience teachers. As mobile phones are not currently used in the Sri Lankan education


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

system, first we had to introduce the educational potential of mobile phones and theways of integrating mobile phones into science teaching. Therefore, teachers wereprovided with continuing professional development workshops that included athree-day Planning Workshop prior to introducing mobile phones into their teachingand a subsequent one-day Reviewing Workshop. For these workshops 20 sets ofmobile phones were loaned from one of the mobile phone operators in Sri Lanka.

The Planning Workshop started with a hands-on session on the use of mobilephones in science teaching and learning. Then, working together in small groups, theteachers selected four science lessons from the Sri Lankan national science curriculafor grades 6 to 11 where mobile phones could be integrated. During Day 2 theparticipants drafted their lesson plans for the lesson they had selected and testedwhether the mobile phones would fulfill their expectations for the planned activities.Then they were given one week to develop a concrete set of instructions for studentsthat they used in their lesson implementation. The designed lessons were role-playedin Day 3 by a member of a group while the others acted as students. At the end ofthe role-play of each lesson, there was a whole-group discussion about the particularlesson. During these discussions, the pedagogical practices as well as the ways ofusing technologies to support these practices were critically evaluated. The lessonplans were fine-tuned based on the feedback received for each lesson.

Next, the lessons were implemented in four schools, each by one of the teachersfrom each group. During the Review Workshop that followed a week later the fourpresenting teachers first presented their experiences, reflections and thoughts aboutthe use of mobile phones in science teaching and learning. This workshop providedopportunities for all the participants to present and discuss their experiences,reflections and thoughts.

The four lessons that were designed and implemented are given below. It shouldbe noted that in Sri Lanka the initial stage of a lesson is named ‘lesson engagement’and is often followed by second-stage ‘lesson development’ where the teacherfacilitates students’ learning of the lesson in order to achieve the expected outcomes.

Lesson 1: Household chemicals

This was designed for a lesson of 80 minutes’ duration for 37 grade 11 students.Three days before the lesson the teacher asked students to collect images (usingmobile phone cameras) of household chemicals and to bring them to the classroomas saved materials. The lesson structure is given below.

Engagement

The teacher named students at random and asked them to transmit the pictures theyhad brought to the teacher’s computer using Bluetooth. Then the teacher ran agroup discussion about these pictures and classified them as detergent, foodadditives, cosmetics and medicines.

Development

Using the classified pictures, the teacher created a Photostory with the participationof the students. Then the teacher grouped the students into four, assigned onecategory of household chemicals to each group and asked them to create an A3


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

poster with the support of leaflets from supermarkets containing pictures of thehousehold chemicals. While students were engaged with this the teacherBluetoothed the Photostory to each group leader’s mobile phone. The group leadersthen shared the file with other group members. Finally the students presented theirposters and the teacher elaborated on some important points.

Evaluation: The teacher assessed the students’ learning by marking theassociated homework, which was based on the Photostory transmitted to thestudents’ mobile phones.

Lesson 2: Functions and reactions of a simple voltaic cell

This lesson was of 80 minutes’ duration for 26 grade 10 students and structured byfollowing the 5E method commonly used by teachers in Sri Lanka (Gunasekaral,2009) as follows:

Engagement

The students were divided into five groups. Each was provided with two mobilephones, a natural fruit, connecting wires, a galvanometer and small metal plates.The teacher Bluetoothed a video clip to the students’ mobile phones which showedthem how to construct a simple voltaic cell using the given fruit. Students then setup the voltaic cell using natural fruit and apparatus.

Exploration

In groups, the students developed a simple voltaic cell using apparatus, metal plates(each group used different metals) and chemicals according to the instructions givenin a worksheet. They recorded their observations using mobile phone video andthen shared these with other groups using Bluetooth.

Elaboration

Students further described their observations with the support of a poster asinstructed by the teacher.

Explanation

The teacher explained the theory behind the students’ observations in whole-groupdiscussion. The teacher instructed the students to re-observe video clips wheneverrequired.

Evaluation of learning

The teacher sent four questions based on the lesson to the students’ mobile phonesas SMS. Upon receiving the students’ answers, she sent feedback to each group viaSMS.

Lesson 3: Investigating the mutual relationships between organisms and theenvironment

This is also for a lesson of 80 minutes’ duration for grade 11 students and thefollowing steps were followed:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Engagement

The teacher introduced the lesson using a Photostory (using images teacher hadtaken locally with her mobile phone to link students’ prior knowledge and introduc-ing new concepts) which described the levels of organisation in an ecosystem.

Development

Students were grouped into four and each group was assigned different roles (groupleader, assistant leader, photographer, assistant photographer, writer and assistantwriter). Each group was assigned to explore a different named location in theschool garden (worksheets and two mobile phones were provided for each group).Further, students were asked to capture five pictures to support their findings usingthe mobile phone. As groups, the students engaged in the activity. After the allottedtime, students came back to the classroom and each group sent five images takenfrom their assigned locations to the teacher’s computer using Bluetooth. Then eachgroup presented their findings based on the worksheet and the pictures that theysent to the teacher’s computer.


The teacher assessed the students as a group based on their completed worksheets,captured images and presentations.

Lesson 4: The diversity of leaves

This lesson was conducted for Grade 6 students and the duration of the lesson was80 minutes. The teacher used the following steps:

Engagement

The teacher introduced the lesson as a whole-group discussion with the help of aPowerPoint presentation which included the images captured from the mobilephones in order to teach the concept of diversity.

Lesson development

The students were grouped into four and each group was given two mobile phonesand a worksheet (each group was asked to collect images of different leaf colours,shapes, edges, and pinnate or non-pinnate leaves). Students went to the schoolgarden and collected the images of the leaves. On returning to the classroom, thestudents shared their images amongst the groups using Bluetooth. Then the teacherintroduced a dichotomous key to classify the plant leaves. Based on the images theyhad in their mobile phones, each group constructed their own dichotomous key andpresented it to the class. After each presentation, the teacher pointed out theimportant facts to note.


The teacher assessed student groups’ knowledge and understanding based on theirpresentation and the images that students saved on the mobile phones.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Data collection and analysis

During the Planning Workshop, the four lesson implementations and the ReviewingWorkshop, data were collected using observation via video and audio recordingsand written materials (teachers’ notes from lesson planning, the participantobserver’s field notes and students’ comments in post-lesson interviews). These datawere transcribed, translated into English if necessary and analysed using thematicnetwork analysis (Attride-Stirling, 2001) with the support of NVivo8 qualitativedata analysis software.

Thematic network analysis seeks to unearth the themes salient in collected data atdifferent levels aiming to facilitate their structuring and depiction through three steps:

(1) basic themes (lowest order premises evident in the text);(2) organising themes (categories of basic themes grouped together to summarise

more abstract principles); and(3) global themes (superordinate themes encapsulating the principal metaphors in

the data as a whole).

Then, these three themes are represented as web-like networks depicting the salientthemes and illustrating the relationship between them. In this study NVivo8, aqualitative data analysis package which supports thematic analysis, was used toanalyse the data. The paper-based materials were first translated and entered intothe NVivo8 software. After that, all the video and audio files were also uploadedwithout transcribing or translating as NVivo8 enables researchers to transcribe audioand video data while playing them.

As the first step of thematic network analysis, an initial coding framework wasdeveloped using codes suggested by both Shulman’s pedagogical reasoning model(Shulman, 1987) and findings from earlier studies on mobile phones in scienceteaching. Then the initial list of codes was refined by adding new codes thatemerged from reviewing the data and modifying the initial codes in the light of thedata. After this the uploaded paper-based data materials and transcribed andtranslated audio and video data were dissected into meaningful segments and eachsegment assigned to the relevant NVivo8 code. After coding, all the dissectedsegments were read again and the issues they represented were reviewed to create abroad set of individual basic themes, which could then be grouped first byorganising themes such as ‘teaching’ or ‘learning’ and then more globally into thethree superordinate themes of planning, implementation and evaluation. In this waydistinct global themes supported by a set of basic themes were extracted from thedata and the three thematic networks shown in Figure 1 were derived.

Findings and discussion

Based on the thematic network analysis described above, the pedagogical processesand knowledge base specifically required when integrating mobile phones in scienceteaching and learning were identified and are discussed below.

In planning science lessons

The thematic network shown in Figure 1(a) shows that the use of mobile phonessupported each teacher’s pedagogical actions in several ways as well as adding new


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

courses of action to the comprehension and transformation processes defined inShulman’s (1987) model. In addition, certain technology-related factors that shouldbe considered during the planning process were also identified.

Comprehension

During the comprehension stage, having mobile phones supported the teachers infinding up-to-date information for science lessons and developing teachers’ contentknowledge. This replicates Wishart et al.’s (2007) result where science teacher train-ees used PDAs to find information on the internet which extended their opportunitiesto plan and update their science lessons, for example, while commuting.

Figure 1. Thematic networks.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Transformation

The science teachers’ planning for the use of mobile phones extended their range ofalternative ways of representing subject matter. However, as discussed by Fauxet al. (2006), they recognised that when planning lessons that use mobile phones,the use of pedagogically appropriate functions of mobile phones and where theyshould be used are important.

It was noted that the use of mobile phones increased opportunities for the teacherto plan the lessons using student-centred strategies. Furthermore, the teachers’ notesindicated that calls, SMS and MMS supported them in exchanging their ideas aboutthe most appropriate teaching tool to represent the subject material in each lesson. Inparticular, the teachers admired the potential of mobile phones for bringing theoutside world into the classroom as images, which was otherwise impossible becauseof the lack of still or video cameras in their schools. For example, the teacher groupwho designed the lesson on household chemicals created a partially completedPhotostory and planned to complete it during the lesson with the images that studentswould bring to the classroom on their mobile phones. In the lessons on environmen-tal relationships and diversity of leaves, teacher groups planned and createdpresentations to teach new concepts from contexts already known to the students.

The use of mobile phones also extended the courses of action involved intransformation. These include:

Checking resources and technology availability. Both observation and the teachers’own notes show that the teachers checked the availability of equipment needed fortheir lessons and whether it was operational. For example, except the group whoused the students’ own mobile phones, other groups checked the number ofavailable loaned mobile phones and the functions on each mobile phone. Moreover,where relevant, the teachers checked the availability of a working data projector attheir school for their lesson using voice call or SMS.

Testing of mobile phone-based teaching aids. The participant teachers identified theimportance of testing the teaching aids representing scientific concepts that wereplanned to be used during the lesson. During the Review Workshop, one teacherexplained how they tested their supporting teaching aid:

After we created a video clip of simple voltaic cell using a fruit, we sent it to other 8mobile phones and checked whether we could use these mobile phones during ourlesson implementation. Actually we haven’t had a problem with any of the mobilephones. (Teacher 6, Reviewing WorkshopnDay 4nAudio filesnLesson 2)

This finding clearly highlighted the importance of testing the teaching and learningaid that was based on mobile phones prior to implementing them in the lessons asthe success of the lesson depended on the teaching aids. However, this process oftesting resources before use is not found in Shulman’s (1987) pedagogical reasoningmodel.

Technology-related factors

It was found that the teachers should consider a number of additional factors at theinitial stage of planning their lessons where they integrated mobile phones. Thesefactors include:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Allowing extra time for technology. The participants said that even though consider-ation of the time duration of a lesson is usual for any lesson, when mobile phonesare being integrated consideration of time is more critical. The following excerptshows how one group discussed this.

Teacher 14: Should we plan the lesson for 40 minutes or 80 minutes?

Teacher 13: I think it should be 80 minutes. We need to give all the necessaryscientific concepts relating to the lesson. As students are going to use mobile phonesto collect some pictures, we should give more time for the lesson. Otherwise, somestudents may not be able to finish the activity on time.

Teacher 11: I also agree the lesson should of 80 minutes duration.

Teacher 14: Exactly, we must consider any problems associated with the technologyas we always have. (Planning WorkshopnDay 1nAudio clipsnLesson 3)

Furthermore, during the Planning Workshop on Day 2 when each group presentedtheir lesson plan to the other participants, the audience questioned the adequacy ofallocated time for some learning activities. Moreover, emphasising the requirementof allowing extra time, during the Review Workshop, three teachers who conductedthe lessons in a real classroom setting reported that they had to use 5–10 minutesextra beyond the expected time to finish the lessons.

Knowledge about students’ technology use. The participant teachers discussed theirstudents’ knowledge and skill levels in the use of mobile phones and ICT, beforedeciding on the depth and breadth of the subject matter (number of objectives) tobe taught. The following excerpt shows how a teacher who agreed to conduct thelesson on ‘diversity of leaves’ briefed her group about the technological skills ofthe students in her class:

The students in my class, grade 6 came from different primary schools and thustheir skill levels are different. I haven’t had an opportunity to access their ICTskills yet. However, I know that the majority of the students had mobile phonessince I had inquired about it before attending this workshop. (PlanningWorkshopnDay 2nAudio clipsnLesson 4)

The teacher’s concerns about possible distractions. During lesson planning, theteachers showed concerns about possible distractions to the planned lessons due tothe multi-functionality of mobile phones. Thus, the participants stressed that theyshould provide instructions to students on responsible use of mobile phones beforeproviding them for learning activities and clearly noted this in their lesson plans.During the lesson implementation, one of the teachers gave instructions as followsbefore giving mobile phones to students:

You all know that a knife can be used for a good or a bad activity. A doctor canuse a knife to save a life whereas another person can use the knife to kill a per-son. What is important is using the knife for a good act. Mobile phone is alsolike that. You are grade 11 students and know very well that mobile phone alsocan use for good as well as bad activities. Therefore I believe you will only use


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

the functions of mobile phones that we intended to use to complete this task.(Implementationnlesson 3nTeacher 13)

However, during their planning discussions, the majority of teachers agreed that thestudents’ misuse of mobile phones is avoidable by making the learning activityinteresting, and that this results from proper guidance.

The teacher’s competence in the use of mobile phone functions. During awhole-group discussion at the Planning Workshop one participant teacher reportedthe requirement of teacher competence as follows:

During implementation of these lessons we will have to act as a facilitator, chal-lenger, adviser and respondent to the student questions related to technology ontop of our usual role as a knowledge provider. Therefore, we should be ready toplay these roles. We should have a confidence about the use of mobile phonefunctions and solve simple technical problems also. (Planning WorkshopnDay02nAudio filesnTeacher 18)

It was observed that participant teachers were keen on practising the functions ofmobile phones that were intended to be used in the lesson implementations, andalso were careful to integrate only the functions of mobile phones they werecompetent with.

The teachers emphasised the requirement of considering the above factorsrelated to technology use prior to planning a science lesson where mobile phonesare to be integrated. Whilst Shulman (1987) proposed that teachers consider the‘characteristics of the student’ in the ‘adaptation stage’, i.e. the last activity ofplanning immediately prior to lesson implementation, the teachers here wereconcerned to address the characteristics of students (i.e. their knowledge oftechnology) initially, that is, prior to lesson planning. Nor does Shulman mentionthe importance of testing teaching tools or technology seen as vital here.

When considering additional knowledge that needs to be considered whenintegrating mobile phones in science lessons, teachers’ knowledge about thestudents’ technology use is important in order to design the activity based onstudents’ competence and thus achieve the lesson goals.

Furthermore, the findings show that the teacher’s own ‘knowledge of andcompetence in mobile phone use’ is a factor that needs to be considered inadvance. This is in addition to the categories of knowledge that Shulman (1987)proposed – he does not mention teachers’ knowledge of any kind of teachingtechnology, alluding only briefly to ‘tools of the trade’ (p. 10) – and is more inline with TPACK.

Implementation and the evaluation of learning

Different teaching methods and aids provided by the mobile phone during thelesson implementation stage added new dimensions to courses of actions defined byShulman during the instruction stage. As mobile phones changed the teaching andlearning process in many ways as shown in the thematic network in Figure 1(b),teachers have to change their courses of action and knowledge base considerably.For example:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Mobile phones enhanced students’ engagement in science learning

It was observed that the mobile phones helped the teacher to engage studentsactively in science learning. During the lesson on household chemicals, studentscould be seen to be eagerly anticipating the opportunity to send their image to theteacher’s computer via Bluetooth.

As well as supporting the teacher to gain students’ attention, the mobile phoneshelped engage them in science learning throughout the lesson by enabling morestudent-centred opportunities than usual. For example, following the lesson onhousehold chemicals, a student reported:

The lesson was very interesting and different. Because, most of the things the teacherdiscussed were based on our pictures. We captured them from our house using ourown mobile phones. Before getting photos we read the labels. Therefore we answeredthe teacher’s questions better than in the other lessons. (Implementing lessonnLesson1nAudio filesnStudents’ view)

In the lesson on the simple voltaic cell it was observed that working collaborativelyto record and especially the responsibility to share experimental observations viatheir phone with other groups (Figure 2) engendered student engagement. Similarlyin Hartnell-Young et al.’s (2008) study, students actively engaged in photographinga scientific experiment.

More importantly, different opportunities provided by mobile phones to enhancestudents’ engagement allowed the teacher to practise a range of new pedagogies.For example, the teacher who sent step-by-step visual instructions as a video clip toengage the students in a laboratory experiment was freer than usual from the needto explain how to set up the experiment. The teacher facilitated the student groupswho needed the teacher’s support most.

Figure 2. Students collaboratively engaged in the activity.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

To connect classroom science learning with the outside world

It was found that the mobile phone supported teachers in bringing the outside worldinto the classroom in two ways:

• the teacher’s use of her/his own mobile phone to bring in teaching materialfrom outside;

• the teacher asking students to use their mobile phones to bring images of theoutside world to the classroom as learning material.

For example, during the lessons on ‘environmental relationships’ and ‘diversity ofleaves’, the teachers captured the outside environment as images (on mobilephones) and used them in Photostory and PowerPoint as teaching aids. On the otherhand, during the lesson on household chemicals students brought images of house-hold chemicals they used at home to the classroom as saved images and the teacherused them in the classroom. This use required the teacher to have knowledge aboutcapturing an image, uploading to the computer using Bluetooth and incorporating itwith a Photostory.

To assess students’ science learning and behaviour (during the lesson)

For example, during the lesson on the simple voltaic cell, the teacher sent threequestions to each group, received the students’ answers, and sent her feedback onthem to the student groups using SMS. During the Reviewing Workshop she added:

I sent my questions based on the observation of the experiment using SMS to all fourgroups and they sent me the correct answers. My original plan was that, if a groupsent me an incorrect answer, I would go to that group and use the video clip they hadrecorded to correct any misconceptions the students had. (ReviewingWorkshopnViewsnTeacher 6)

Besides this, the teacher assessed students’ understanding of the topic by viewingtheir video recordings and images while the students were engaged in furtherlearning activities. Where errors in making observations or even misconceptionswere identified, this enabled prompt self-correction.

To correct students’ misconceptions

The support of the mobile phone was highlighted for the teacher in correctingstudents’ science misconceptions, by providing the opportunity to revisit thestudent-captured observations of science experiments/activities. For example, whendiscussing the reactions that took place in the lesson on the simple voltaic cell,upon receiving students’ response, the teacher said to the group who presented theirobservations incorrectly:

Teacher 6: The group who presented that they had observed evolving gas bubblesfrom copper plate when dipping into the beaker containing the zinc plate and dilutesulphuric acid, could you please observe your video clip again

Teacher 6: (After some time) What did you observe? Eja?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Eja: Sorry teacher, air bubbles are not coming from copper plate

Teacher 6: Excellent. (Implementing Lessonn Lesson 2nVideo files)

Using a video recording to correct the students’ misconception about the reactivityof different metals was a new dimension added by the use of the mobile phone toteachers’ pedagogical practices.

The above factors that emerged due to the integration of mobile phones intoscience teaching and learning demanded that new organisation and managementprocesses be added to the teacher’s pedagogical activities reported in Shulman’spedagogical actions and reasoning model. Moreover, it is clear that the portable,contextual and personal nature of the mobile phone (Kukulska-Hulme, 2005)complemented the support of the mobile phone functions for teachers’ pedagogicalactions.

In addition to the support provided by the mobile phones, the use of mobilephones during the lesson implementation introduced some issues for the teachersthat required additional technology-related knowledge. For example, the shortbattery life of mobile phones affected the continuity of students’ engagement duringtwo lessons, as in each case one group had to go to the teacher and wait until theteacher changed the battery. During the lesson on the simple voltaic cell, inadequatememory was found to be an issue. During the Review Workshop the teacher whoconducted the lesson reported that this problem arose due to her inadequateknowledge about this new tool.

Evaluation

Teachers reflected on the different pedagogical practices that were required whenusing the mobile phones, the different courses of actions required during theplanning and teaching stages and required additions to their knowledge base. Thethematic network for reflections shown in Figure 1(c) shows these requirements andevidence for them is discussed below.

The support of mobile phones for the teacher

The teachers’ reflections on their planning largely focused on the mobile phonefunctions used. The teacher who conducted the lesson on ‘household chemicals’reflected on the group’s use of the internet as follows:

Our lesson was actually based on the household chemical products. Therefore,knowing the new products in the market and their ingredients were useful for thislesson. As the students come to know about new products by watching TV andbrowsing the internet using their own mobile phones or using their home computer,the teacher needed to be well prepared to do this lesson. The internet access is notavailable in my home or in the school. So I found that the internet facility of mymobile phone was the best resource for me. So it was quite useful for our group whenplanning of our lesson. (WorkshopsnDay 4-Reviewing WorkshopnVideonTeacher 4)

Other teachers reflected on how the mobile phones helped them to create a videoclip to provide visual instructions on constructing a simple voltaic cell as follows:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

None of our group members or our schools has a personal digital camera. But three ofus have mobile phones with the video function. Therefore, we decided to create thevideo clip in my house. … We carried out the experiment with a number of fruits andvideo recorded the observations. Then we selected the best video clip that was richenough to provide instructions. After that, we MMS it to other members of our groupand received their feedback. During the lesson implementation we understood thathow effective this was. (WorkshopsnDay 4-Reviewing WorkshopnVideonTeacher 13)

Moreover, teachers reflected on the use of mobile phones during the implementationof lessons. They recognised the learning opportunities enabled by the mobilephones and their support in attracting students’ attention towards the science lesson.For example, the teacher who conducted the lesson on the simple voltaic cellreflected that she had never used a video clip as a medium for providinginstructions to start a lesson in her 15 years of teaching and she now understood itspotential to obtain her students’ attention.

The teachers also appreciated the potential of mobile phones to bring the outsideworld into the classroom to facilitate science teaching. The teacher who conductedthe lesson on ‘environmental relationships’ reflected:

Actually I have been teaching this lesson for last five years. I have used the overheadprojector and the data projector to show photographs captured (or downloaded fromthe internet) from different locations based on my points of view. Sometimes theseimages were not familiar to the students and therefore they were not fully engaged inthe lesson. However, in this lesson students brought the images of mutual relationshipsthat they had observed, understood and experienced in the school environment.Therefore it was easy to construct the lesson inside the classroom with active studentparticipation. (WorkshopsnDay 4-Reviewing WorkshopnVideonTeacher 13)

This finding supports Wishart (2007) who suggested that the image capture functionof PDAs helps teachers to bring the outside world into the classroom, thus provid-ing learning opportunities from a context that is known to students. Furthermore,during the Review Workshop teachers admired the opportunities provided by themobile phones to aid collaborative science learning and students’ observation skills.A student commented following the environmental relationships lesson:

Actually today our observation method was different too, because today we looked atthat object to photograph it. That eye was different from just looking at an object. Wetried to see even minor things in that environment, if we decided that would be useful.Therefore I can say that because of the photographing we observed the environmentfully [smiling]. (WorkshopsnDay 4-Reviewing Workshopn Student ViewnAudio Files)

Teachers’ reflections on their readiness for mobile learning

During the Reviewing Workshop, the teachers reflected on their inexperience inusing the mobile phones for science teaching and learning. For example, oneteacher noted:

We do not have the proper training to use mobile phones in teaching. I understoodthat our personal use of the mobile phone was entirely different from using it inclassroom teaching, I mean in front of the students and for student centred activities.(Reviewing WorkshopnVideonDay 4n Teacher 6 Reviewing)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

In contrast, a teacher who conducted the lesson on environmental relationships saidthat he could effectively use mobile phones in student learning activities. Heemphasised two points for successful use:

• decision to assign roles for each student and prepare nametags for each role;• preparation of a well-structured worksheet for students so that they couldfollow step-by-step instructions to engage in the activity.

It is evident from these findings that teachers’ technical knowledge and experiencewith the use of mobile phones and new pedagogical practices suitable for the lessoncould overcome some difficulties a teacher might face when carrying out a lessonthat uses mobile phones.

Teacher-assessed students’ learning

Teachers had assessed students during the lesson implementation as discussedearlier and afterwards as discussed here.

Teachers reported that they could assess student learning after the lessons usingthe saved images and video clips that the students had captured during theirlearning activities. For example the teachers who conducted the lessons onenvironmental relationships and diversity of leaves mentioned that they assessed thestudents in groups and awarded a certain percentage of marks after viewing theimages that the students had gathered during the learning activity. Thus havingmobile phones was seen to support the teachers in conducting assessments, bothformatively, as shown in Roschelle, William, Yarnall, Shechtman, and Tatar’s study(2005), and summatively by viewing videos and images after the lesson. Forexample, teachers reported that viewing the SMS, video clips and recorded imagessent by students during the lesson provided them opportunities for understandingwhat the student knew and helped teaching based on student needs. In addition, thesaved images and video clips (which students had recorded during learningactivities) provided flexibility for teachers both to assess students’ science learningand to reflect on their practice at a time of their convenience.

Thus the teachers’ reflection follows the pattern described by Shulman (1987) aswhat a teacher does when he/she looks back at the teaching and learning that hasoccurred and reviews the events, the emotions, and their accomplishments in orderto inform the next teaching cycle. The students’ reflections shown in Figure 1(c)are described elsewhere (Ekanayake, 2011).

Conclusion

In conclusion, whilst this study was limited by its small scale and context, it wasclear that within the four lessons observed the functions and attributes of mobilephones supported science teachers’ pedagogical practice in a variety of waysthroughout the pedagogical cycle of lesson planning, implementation andevaluation. This was particularly obvious where teachers had not previously hadaccess to teaching tools such as the internet at home or digital cameras.

It was found that a process-based model of pedagogical reasoning such as thatoriginally presented by Shulman (1987) could be used effectively to frame ways inwhich teachers can integrate mobile phones into their teaching, though teachers


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

need a range of new pedagogical practices and knowledge additional to thoseoriginally defined by Shulman. This integration not only added the new process oftesting the teaching tool to the transformation stage defined in Shulman’s model butalso highlighted the need for a teacher’s knowledge base to include familiarity withboth their and their students’ knowledge of and competence with new technologies.Thus, as Loveless (2011) pointed out, teachers’ knowledge should not be thoughtof as comprising static categories but as a dynamic process incorporating changesin teaching contexts, whether technological, economic, social or cultural.

Notes on contributorsSakunthala Y. Ekanayake is a Lecturer in the Department of Education in the Faculty ofArts at the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. She completed her PhD on mobile learningat the University of Bristol, UK in 2011. Her main research interests include mobilelearning, e-learning and science education.

Jocelyn Wishart is a Senior Lecturer in Education in the Graduate School of Education atthe University of Bristol, UK and directs the MSc in Science & Education, which combinesstudy in both the Faculty of Science and the Graduate School of Education. She joined theUniversity of Bristol PGCE science team in 2003. Prior to going into teacher training shetaught science, psychology and ICT at secondary school level.

ReferencesAlexander, R. (1992). Policy and practice in primary education. London: Routledge.Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice teachers as ICT designers: An instructional

design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal ofComputer-Assisted Learning, 21, 292–302.

Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research.Qualitative Research, 1, 385–405.

Benta, K., & Cremene, M. (2004, July). Multimedia m-learning using mobile phones. Paperpresented at mLearn2004, London.

Ekanayake, T. M. S. S. K. Y. (2011). The potential of mobile phones to support scienceteachers in Sri Lanka: A focus on pedagogy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Bristol, UK.

Faux, F., McFarlane, A., Roche, N., & Facer, K. (2006). Handhelds: Learning withhandheld technologies. Bristol: Futurelab.

Gunasekaral, T. A. R. J. (2009). Education development in Sri Lanka: A historicalperspective. Islamabad, Pakistan: SAARC Human Resource Development Centre.

Hartnell-Young, E., & Heym, N. (2008). How mobile phones help learning in secondaryschools. Nottingham: Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham.

Kimbell, R. (2012). Evolving project e-scape for national assessment. International Journalof Technology and Design Education, 22, 135–155.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacherknowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, and technology.Computers and Education, 49, 740–762.

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005). Introduction. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.),Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (1st ed., pp. 1–6). Milton Park:Routledge.

Loveless, A. (2011). Reflections on the accomplishment of what teachers know, do andbelieve in a digital age. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20, 301–316.

Roschelle, J., William, R. P., Yarnall, L., Shechtman, N., & Tatar, D. (2004, March). Hand-held tools that ‘informate’ assessment of student learning in science: A requirementsanalysis. Paper presented at 2nd International Workshop on Mobile and Wireless Tech-nologies in Education, JungLi, Taiwan.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Roschelle, J., William, R. P., Yarnall, L., Shechtman, N., & Tatar, D. (2005). Handheld toolsthat ‘informate’ assessment of student learning in science: A requirements analysis.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 190–203.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R., & Bell, D. (2002). Researching

effective pedagogy in the early years. Institute of Education, University of London.Vahey, P., & Crawford, V. (2002). Palm education pioneers program: Final evaluation

report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Watkins, C., & Mortimore, P. (1999). Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning.

London: Paul Chapman.Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communica-

tions technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13, 235–286.Wishart, J. (2007). The seven Cs – No eight, nine Cs of m-learning. In I. Arnedillo-Sánchez,

M. Sharples, & G. Vavoula (Eds.), Beyond mobile learning workshop (pp. 58–63).Dublin: Trinity College Dublin Press.

Wishart, J., Ramsden, A., & McFarlane, A. (2007). PDAs and handhelds: ICT at your sideand not in your face. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16, 95–110.

Woodgate, D., Fraser, D. S., Crellin, D., & Gower, A. (2008, October). Mobile learning incontext: School science data collection as legitimate peripheral participation? Paperpresented at mLearn2008, Wolverhampton, UK.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

43 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Documents

Developing teachers’ pedagogical practice in teaching science lessons with mobile phones