Computers & Education 59 (2012) 206–214

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

The impact of Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) implementation on

student learning and teachers’ teaching in a high school context
Ruey S. Shieh*
Dept. of Information Management, Kainan University, No.1 Kainan Road, Luzhu Shiang, Taoyuan 33857, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) is a pedagogical innovation established in a technology-
Received 16 August 2011 enhanced multimedia studio, emphasizing constructivist-oriented teaching and learning. In Taiwan, an
Received in revised form increasing number of schools are adopting the TEAL notion to deliver courses. This study examines the
18 January 2012
impact of TEAL on both student performance and teachers’ teaching of physics in the context of one of
Accepted 20 January 2012
the high schools. A quasi-experimental research approach was used to conduct the study. Data sources
include pre-/post-tests, interviews, class observations, and the researcher’s journals. The findings reveal
Keywords:
that the benefits that the participants gained from exposure to the innovative instruction appear in
Constructivist-oriented pedagogy
Improving classroom teaching various aspects in addition to the students’ test results. Having higher interest in attending physics
Teaching beliefs classes and being more active in participating in extracurricular science activities on the part of the
Technology-enhanced instruction students, and being more enthusiastic about and confident in helping students strengthen their physics
concepts on the part of the teacher, are among the non-test score gains. The students’ achievements and
positive responses to the teacher’s instruction seem to have motivated his dedication and confidence. It is
also found that teachers’ teaching beliefs and desire to change greatly affected their classroom practices
and technology integration. To more effectively implement instructional innovations in a school,
suggestions are provided.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) was initiated at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2001 and features media-rich
software for simulation and visualization to facilitate students’ learning (see http://icampus.mit.edu/teal/ for more detailed information).
The educational theory of TEAL is grounded in the concept of social constructivist theory (Dori & Belcher, 2005). Accordingly, TEAL
emphasizes active learning and small-group discussion during the instructional process. The class interaction and discussion is accom-
plished through the support of the Interactive Response System (IRS), which allows the instructor to pose questions, and track and assess
students’ responses to the discussed questions individually and immediately. The overarching goal of TEAL is to establish a format that
engages students in learning physics and technology-related subject matters more profoundly so that they can acquire a more thorough
understanding of the studied content, both conceptually and analytically (Belcher, 2001). TEAL integrates lectures, problem-solving, and
hands-on laboratory activities in the instruction (Breslow, 2010).
In order to promote technology-enhanced innovative teaching in school-level education, Taiwan’s central government has appropriated
substantial amounts of money to help schools, particularly resource-disadvantaged schools, to upgrade their technological facilities. The
Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan has also launched a series of programs to facilitate innovative teaching. For example, the Central
Region Office of the MOE initiated a program called the Community-Based Senior-High Program (CBSHP, a translated name) during 2003–
2009, aimed at promoting an innovative, idiosyncratic teaching/learning environment at high schools accessible to local school commu-
nities. In 2006, HW Senior High School (HWHS, a pseudonym), located in central-south Taiwan, submitted a proposal for implementing
TEAL. The proposal was granted for a two-year period. HWHS thus built a TEAL studio on campus in 2006 and became the first high school in
Taiwan to adopt TEAL to teach courses. Features of the TEAL studio at HWHS are rather similar to those established at MIT, except that the

DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.024.
* Tel.: þ886 3 3412500x3501; fax: þ886 3 3412173.
E-mail address: rueys99@gmail.com.

0360-1315/$ – see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.016
 R.S. Shieh / Computers & Education 59 (2012) 206–214 207

scale (the number of tables and chairs) of the studio is smaller than that of the MIT site. In addition to sharing resources with the school
communities, HWHS was also obliged to hold multiple workshops/seminars to disseminate the TEAL notion to nationwide educators and
teachers interested in learning technology-enhanced pedagogical skills and knowledge. In 2008, HWHS was approved for another two years
of grants to sustain its TEAL implementation. During those years, HWHS gained much attention from nationwide educational institutions
and media due to its successful implementation of the TEAL innovation. As CBSHP ended in 2009, the MOE Central Region Office launched
another program called Optimizing Teaching at Senior-High, which solicited school-based proposals focusing on improving school-wide
instructional quality. The TEAL pedagogy established at HWHS was used as an example for the optimization. Many a school thus fol-
lowed suit, submitting their proposals to implement TEAL. As a result, a total of 50 schools were granted permission to construct TEAL
studios on campus to pursue TEAL oriented teaching/learning. As an increasing number of teachers in Taiwan are adopting TEAL to enhance
their instruction, whether and how TEAL impacts teachers and students is of great concern. The purpose of this study is to explore the
influence of TEAL on both students and teachers, using HWHS as a research context.

2. Literature review

2.1. Shift in instructional practices

Lipman (1991) assumes that there are two sharply contrasting paradigms of educational practice: the standard paradigm of normal
practice and the reflective paradigm of critical practice. In the standard paradigm, Lipman describes that the teacher plays an authoritative
role in the instructional process and transmits what s/he knows to those who do not know, while in a reflective paradigm, students are
expected to be participatory and reflective, and increasingly reasonable and judicious in a teacher-guided community of inquiry. Reflective,
active learning was initially promoted by Dewey (1933/1997). Dewey contended that the educational process is based upon an attitude of
“shared inquiry” whereby the teacher is now a partner in the collaborative relationship with the student. Hoban (2002) indicated that
teachers who are trapped in the traditional paradigm commonly hold the misconception of mastery in teaching; being reflective is often not
the case of teachers who regard teaching as a craft. In those teachers’ view, they have already mastered the teaching skills over time.
In recent years, many educators and researchers have advocated social constructivist practices. Social constructivist theory contends that
knowledge is socially situated and is constructed through reflection on one’s own thoughts and experiences, as well as others’ ideas.
Education takes place within an existing social environmental context (Dewey, 1938). Constructivist learning in the educational context is
regarded both as a philosophy and as a pedagogy (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Marra, 2003). In the social constructivist learning envi-
ronment, students are encouraged to actively engage in learning: to discuss, argue, negotiate ideas, and to collaboratively solve problems;
teachers design and provide the learning context and facilitate learning activities (Palincsar, 1998). Becker and Riel (1999) found that
teachers with a collaborative orientation are more likely to shift towards interactive, constructivist practices, whereas those constrained to
their own classroom are prone to stress curriculum coverage, knowledge impartation, and direct instruction practices. Becker and Riel also
reported that school culture greatly affects teachers’ instructional practices. That is, teachers in schools with a professional, collaborative
culture are more likely to practice instruction in line with reflective, constructivist reform ideas, whereas those in schools with a more
conventional atmosphere are inclined to engage in individual, traditional instructional practices.

2.2. Technology-enhanced constructivist teaching

The use of technology has fundamentally changed the pedagogical practices of the classroom. According to ISTE (International Society for
Technology in Education) NETS for Teachers (2008), teachers nowadays are expected to use their knowledge of subject matter, teaching and
learning, and technology to facilitate student learning. Technology integration refers to the practice of containing technology in teaching
(Koehler & Mishra, 2008). Beichner et al. (1999) reported that students taught with a technology-rich, collaborative, activity-based
instructional approach outperformed those who studied with the traditional teaching method. They also found that students’ satisfac-
tion, confidence, and retention rates were noticeably high. Similarly, Hake (1998) claimed that the learning gain achieved by the students,
including university and high school students, taught with substantial use of interactive-engagement methods was twice as high as that
achieved by the traditional course students. Hake (2007) asserted that although high-tech per se does not ensure superior student learning,
it can be beneficial when it comes to promoting interactive-engagement. Several studies have specifically examined the impact of TEAL on
university students studying introductory physics courses and found that students exposed to TEAL achieved higher learning gains than
those studying in traditional classrooms (e.g. Dori & Belcher, 2005; Shieh, Chang, & Liu, 2011; Shieh, Chang, & Tang, 2010). What’s more, their
retention of concepts was significantly greater (Dori, Hult, Breslow, & Belcher, 2007).
Lowerison, Sclater, Schmid, and Abrami (2006) contended that there is a connection between computer technology, active learning, and
perceived course effectiveness. Koehler and Mishra (2008) and Mishra and Koehler (2006) emphasized that to successfully integrate
technology into instruction, three types of knowledge – technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (referred to as the TPCK framework)
– need to be closely connected. They argued that effective teaching with technology demands an understanding of the representation of
concepts using technologies; pedagogical skills that employ technologies in constructive methods to teach content; knowledge of resolving
problems students encounter with the use of technologies; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to strengthen existing
knowledge and to develop new epistemologies. In other words, integrating technology into instruction requires more than merely including
technology in teaching. Ertmer (2005) contended that although the elements demanded for integrating technology into reflective,
constructivist-based practices, such as access to technology and training for teachers, seem to have been well developed in more recent
years, teachers’ beliefs and subsequent instructional practices, may yet be barriers inhibiting technology integration.

2.3. Teaching beliefs and teacher change

Some researchers have asserted that teachers’ beliefs regarding teaching and learning affect their classroom practice (Prawat, 1992).
Teachers’ beliefs, such as their presumptions, commitments, and ideologies, influence their perceptions of what students ought to learn
208 R.S. Shieh / Computers & Education 59 (2012) 206–214

(Calderhead, 1996). They also influence the teachers’ perceptions of the nature and purposes of teaching, attitudes toward professional
development, and how they learn to teach (Calderhead, 1996). Teachers’ conceptions and beliefs about teaching and learning and their
knowledge of the subject they are teaching affect their adaptation to innovation (Fogleman, McNeill, & Krajcik, 2011; Hoban, 2002; Pinto,
2005). In the area of technological innovation, many researchers have found that teachers holding constructivist beliefs are more likely to
integrate technology into their classroom practices, whereas those with traditional views are less prone to adopt technology (Becker & Riel,
2000; Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008; Sang, Valcke, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2010). Changing teacher beliefs, especially to
constructivist-based teaching, however, is a rather challenging task as it demands greater effort and pedagogical skills on the part of the
teachers (Prawat, 1992).
Classroom change greatly relies on teacher change (Akpan, 2010; Prawat, 1992). Many researchers have reported that professional
development programs provide an effective venue to bring about change in teachers’ classroom practices (e.g. Guskey, 1986; King,
2002; Ostermeier, Prenzel, & Duit, 2010), particularly changing in ways that are coherent with a constructivist philosophy (Becker
& Riel, 2000). Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, and Hewson (2010) contended that it requires time for new knowledge
attained from professional development to be transformed into beliefs and changes in practices. Teachers, however, may not be willing
to be involved in professional development projects, particularly long-term programs, if they do not perceive a need to change (Hoban,
2002). Mezirow (1991) asserted that change and transformation in adults’ perspectives frequently occurs when encountering
disequilibrium dilemmas, and then proceeds through multiple phases of progression. Likewise, teachers are more likely to make
adjustments when they confront situations caused by insufficient knowledge in certain subjects (Arzi & White, 2007). Baylor and
Ritchie (2002) revealed that teachers who are more open to change tend to grasp opportunities to learn new technology skills
when provided, and thus benefit from the opportunity with increased competence. They also disclosed that teacher openness to
change could be predicted by the level of support for professional development and administrators’ leadership. Positive leadership,
a school culture in line with innovation, and a framework for teacher learning that supports teachers during the process of change are
important factors leading to teacher change (Hoban, 2002). Tondeur, van Keer, van Braak, and Valcke (2008) found that teachers’
perceptions of school policy, rather than their technology profiles, are more influential on their change, particularly when it comes to
integrating technology into classroom practice. Some researchers have identified that high-level enthusiasm for learning is an essential
characteristic that drives teachers to be dedicated to professional development (Murnane, 1985), even if they are more senior to others
in age (Penick & Yager, 1983).
In the literature, a number of researchers have claimed that technology-enhanced, constructivist-based instruction effectively helps
students to improve their academic performance (e.g. Beichner et al., 1999; Dori & Belcher, 2005; Dori et al., 2007; Hake, 1998, 2007; Shieh
et al., 2010). A number of studies have identified factors associated with teachers’ inclination to engage in technology integration (e.g. Becker
& Riel, 2000; Hermans et al., 2008; Sang et al., 2010; Tondeur et al., 2008). However, few have investigated the impact of technology-
enhanced innovative pedagogy on students and teachers based on both sides’ perspectives, particularly in a high school context. How
interactive, technology-enabled pedagogy, such as TEAL, affects both high school student performance as well as teachers’ teaching and
beliefs deserves an in-depth investigation. Three research questions guide this study:

1. What have students gained from being involved in TEAL?

2. How has the TEAL teacher benefited from engaging in TEAL?
3. How has the implementation of TEAL changed the instructional practices and teaching beliefs of the teachers involved in this study?

3. Methodology

To address the research questions, an approach triangulated with qualitative and quantitative data was used to conduct the study. The
data were collected through a quasi-experimental research design, involving experimental and control groups.

3.1. Research context

After HWHS built the TEAL studio, there was only one physics teacher who used the studio to teach courses. In 2009, this teacher was
arbitrarily assigned to teach a required Physics course to an 11th-grade class, which class is regarded as the experimental (TEAL) group in
this study. Two other classes taking the same course taught by two different teachers using the traditional classroom were selected as
control classes based on the following two reasons: (1) the average GPA of the students in those two classes was rather similar to that of the
TEAL class in their 10th grade year, and (2) these two teachers volunteered to participate in the study. In the TEAL class, the students were
taught by integrating lectures and hands-on activities, including demonstrations, simulations, and the use of IRS, whereas in the control
classes the students were taught using the traditional lecture method.

3.2. Data collection

Two sets of tests were selected to compare student performance: (1) the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) developed by Hestenes, Wells,
and Swackhamer (1992), and (2) the Mechanics Baseline Test (MBT) developed by Hestenes and Wells (1992). The FCI, consisting of 30
multiple-choice questions, was used to measure the students’ conceptual understanding of basic concepts of Newtonian mechanics. The
MBT, consisting of 26 multiple-choice questions, was employed to probe the students’ math manipulation ability in addition to basic physics
concepts. The tests were administered twice, once at the beginning of the course (pre-test) and then again at the end (post-test). All students
involved in the study were scheduled to take the tests in the same time slot.
Four sources of qualitative data were gathered.

1. Class observations: Four observations in each participating class were conducted. A list containing eight semi-structured items guided
the observations, consisting of attendance, classroom management, teachers’ teaching style, interaction between teacher and
 R.S. Shieh / Computers & Education 59 (2012) 206–214 209

students, interaction among students, number of questions the teachers raised, student reactions, number of questions students
actively asked, and the overall atmosphere of the class. However, three more items were added to the list for observing the TEAL class,
including frequency of use of IRS, correct ratios of student responses to the IRS questions posed, and interaction in the small-group
discussions.
2. Individual interviews with teachers: Each of the three participating teachers was interviewed twice, once at the beginning of the course
and then again at the end. In the first interview, the teachers were asked 14 semi-open-ended questions which were grouped into five
categories related to: background and experience, teaching beliefs, instructional strategies, students (e.g. academic background and
expectations regarding students), and attitudes toward integrating technology into instruction. The second interview consisted of 10
semi-open-ended questions grouped into three categories: perceived student performance, attitudes toward using TEAL, and overall
reflections on the course. Each interview lasted from 30 min to one hour depending upon how much the teachers were willing to share.
All interviews were conducted by the author and were digitally recorded.
3. Group interviews with students: Three group interviews (one group per class) were conducted at the end of the course. Six students in
each class were randomly selected, with two additional students selected from each class to fill in possible absence of the originally
selected students. A total of five questions were included in the semi-structured interviews: attitudes toward learning physics, study
strategies, preference of teaching methods, perceived class interaction, and overall reflections on the course. The students took turns
addressing each of the questions. Each interview lasted for 40 min or so, and all were administered by the author and digitally taped.
4. The researcher’s journals: The researcher has been engaged in assessing technology-related and innovative instruction for the past
decade, and TEAL has been an ongoing project in the last four years. The researcher was twice invited by HWHS to be an external
evaluator assessing its TEAL implementation. Observations of the participating activities were all recorded in the researcher’s personal
journals. In addition, all documents and materials associated with the HWHS TEAL project were also gathered.

3.3. Data analysis

“Class” was used as the unit of analysis. The quantitative data were analyzed using statistical tools, including statistical descriptive, t-test,
ANOVA, and learning gain calculations. ANOVA was conducted to address whether a difference in students’ prior knowledge preexisted
among the three classes. t-test was used to distinguish the pre-/post-test performance achieved by the classes. The normalized learning gain
<g> was calculated based on Hake’s (1998) definition:

< g > ¼ ½ðpost-test score  pre-test scoreÞ=ð100  pre-test scoreÞ  100%

It indicates the ratio of the actual average gain to the maximum possible average gain. As to teachers’ change in instructional practices
and teaching beliefs, it is examined based on whether the teachers include technology in their classroom practices and whether they believe
that technology can facilitate student learning in a more effective manner, respectively.
Guba and Lincoln (1989) stated that participants are groups at risk; a group at risk deserves an opportunity to express its thoughts and
claims and to be heard accordingly. As such, this study adopted the theoretical framework of social construction proposed by Patton
(2002) to address the qualitative inquiries, particularly in the aspect of participants’ learning/teaching experiences. The interview
content was transcribed verbatim. The three types of codes, descriptive, interpretive, and pattern codes, addressed in Miles and Huberman
(1994, pp. 50–89) were used to code and analyze the data. The data were coded paragraph by paragraph first to describe the overall
content of the data. Examples of codes used included “interaction related,” “motivations of learning/teaching physics,” “teaching beliefs,”
“instructional style related,” “attitudes toward technology,” etc. In the second stage, the data were coded interpretively statement by
statement. The initial codes were further labeled in more specific variables. For instance, statements labeled as interaction were coded as
“interaction between the teacher and students,” “interaction within small-group members,” or “overall class interaction.” New variables
that emerged were recorded, such as “non-test score achievements,” “teacher characteristics related,” “transformation related,” etc.
Afterward, statements coded with the same or similar variables were grouped. General patterns or themes were then sought while
repeatedly reviewing the statements. In addition to comparing among classes and among teachers, data between the teacher and students
in each class were also compared for the purpose of extracting consistent or contrasting themes emerging from those sets of data. The
fundamental principle guiding the data coding process was that “it is not the words themselves but their meaning that matters,” as
emphasized by Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 56). To increase the reliability of the coding, a research assistant majoring in education and
the author conducted the coding separately. The two sets of coding were compared and reviewed until agreement was reached. The two
coders kept a non-judgmental principle to code and analyze the data, which contributed to the validity of the information shared by the
participants. Furthermore, member checks were administered to the teachers interviewed, and the TEAL teacher once provided feedback
to clarify a few statements he made in the last interview. The classroom observations and the interview content were triangulated to
strengthen the reliability of the analyzed data. The researcher’s journals and the collected documents helped to assure the authenticity of
the information provided by the participants, particularly in the aspects of TEAL implementation and student achievements claimed by
the TEAL teacher.

4. Results

A total of 117 students in the three classes (41, 39 and 37 in the TEAL and the two control classes, respectively) took the Physics course in
2009. There were 96 students who completed both the pre- and post-FCI tests, and 107 who completed both the pre- and post-MBTs. For
identification purposes, the two control classes are labeled as Class X and Class Y, as opposed to TEAL for the experimental class. As
scheduled, eighteen students, six females and twelve males, participated in the group interviews, and the three teachers were interviewed
twice individually. However, the TEAL teacher was interviewed for a third time, two months after the end of the course, to clarify some
previously collected information as well as to share and discuss the students’ overall performance.
210 R.S. Shieh / Computers & Education 59 (2012) 206–214

4.1. Conceptual understanding

The ANOVA results reveal that there was no significant difference among the three classes in the FCI pre-test (p-value ¼ .36) nor in the MBT
(p-value ¼ .12), indicating that there was no significant difference in students’ prior knowledge among the three classes. Table 1 lists the paired
pre-/post t-test results and average learning gains achieved by the three classes. Cronbach values of the tests range between .63 and .88, with
the TEAL class having a relatively stable test reliability (Cronbach ¼ .86 for the FCI and .79 for the MBT). As Table 1 shows, the classes, regardless
of group, acquired higher scores on the FCI than on the MBT. All classes made significant improvement on the FCI, whereas the two control
classes achieved negative learning gains on the MBT. Although the TEAL class outperformed the control classes on the FCI (mean ¼ 54.35,
SD ¼ 18.74, as opposed to 52.37, SD ¼ 18.44 and 46.21, SD ¼ 13.82 for the control classes), the average learning gain it achieved (9.83%, t-test p-
value ¼ .023) was lower than that achieved by Class X (13.61%, t-test p-value ¼ .002). The TEAL class, however, outperformed the two control
classes on the MBT in both the mean score (mean ¼ 43.62, SD ¼ 17.39, as opposed to mean ¼ 39.50, SD ¼ 14.21 and mean ¼ 29.69, SD ¼ 13.15
for the control classes, respectively) and the average learning gain (g ¼ 8.52%, t-test p-value ¼ .01, as opposed to g ¼ 3.18%, t-test p-value ¼ .40,
and g ¼ 11.42%, t-test p-value ¼ .047 for the two control classes), indicating that the TEAL class improved significantly in both conceptual
understanding and math manipulation skills as a result of taking the course. Shieh et al. (2011) reported that the MBT, rather than the FCI, may
be a better tool for assessing students’ fundamental concepts of mechanics in Taiwan. They stated that in recent years the concepts of
misconceptions of force presented in the FCI test have been addressed in most contemporary physics textbooks in Taiwan, which may have
helped the students substantially in attaining a higher test score. This seems to be reflected in the situation of the current study.

4.2. Preferences of learning and teaching

According to the interview data, most of the students regarded physics as a difficult subject to study. However, compared to the control
students, the TEAL students showed more positive attitudes toward going to the physics class because they said it was fun. “Fun” to them
meant that the instructor provided them with demonstrations and hands-on activities along with the lectures in a high-tech studio, which
they stated was rather different from other courses they had experienced previously. For example, they described that they learned the
concept of resonance through observing a simulated suspension bridge blown by the wind. They reported that such activities were
interesting and helped them to be better able to connect the theory to their real-life experiences. The use of IRS also appeared fun to them in
that they could know the correct ratios of their answers to the posed questions instantly.
Some control students indicated that although some physics content appeared rather difficult, it could be easily mastered by memorizing
formulas and practicing homework repeatedly. Two students in Class Y, who claimed to have poor physics grades, complained that their
teacher always asked them to “copy” the notes from the blackboard, which was more like mechanically practicing writing than learning
physics. To them the notes were all from the textbook; therefore, copying the content was boring and had nothing to do with learning
physics. However, one other student in the same class commented that writing down the notes helped her figure out the key points of the
lectured content, which she thought was a helpful approach. One common statement the majority of the students mentioned in the
interviews, regardless of group, was that they liked lab activities. In addition to being interesting, lab work was perceived as being more
helpful for enhancing their conceptual understanding than listening to lectures.
The students were asked to describe the preferred approach to teaching physics courses were they ever to become teachers themselves.
Several students mentioned that they would emphasize lab activities to promote students’ interest in studying the subjects. One TEAL
student stated that he would set aside time for students to engage in small-group discussion as it allowed them to think through the
lectured content. Most TEAL students also mentioned that the face-to-face round-table seating, as opposed to the conventional side-by-side
seating, facilitated group discussion activities. One TEAL student, however, added that such seating promoted chatting as well. One control
student said that he would focus on teaching basic concepts, rather than advanced ones. His explanation was that teaching complicated
manipulation problems was meaningless unless students had established solid fundamental knowledge. Several other control students
intuitively concurred with their teacher’s current traditional approach, namely, explaining key concepts and terminology first, introducing
content and formulas, and then providing examples and abundant exercises for students to practice, which appears to reflect Arzi and
White’s (2007) argument that teachers’ knowledge base is formed by their prior learning experiences as school students.

4.3. Teaching beliefs and teaching strategies

All of the three teachers participating in the study had more than 14 years teaching experience, with the TEAL teacher having the longest
teaching career – 23 years. The impact of TEAL on the TEAL teacher was identified by comparing the three teachers’ teaching beliefs and

Table 1
Summary of t-test results and learning gains of the three classes

Items FCI MBT

Group TEAL Class X Class Y TEAL Class X Class Y

Student # 36 31 29 38 37 32

Test Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Meana 50.28 54.35 46.34 52.37 41.72 46.21 38.56 43.62 40.13 39.50 34.50 29.69
Std. Dev. 15.34 18.74 13.37 18.44 13.96 13.82 12.97 17.39 11.59 14.21 12.72 13.15
t-Test (1-tail) .02* .00** .04* .01* –.40 –.047*
gb 9.83% 13.61% 6.49% 8.52% –3.18% –11.42%
*
p-value < .05 ** p-value < .005.
a
Normalized average.
b
Normalized learning gain.
 R.S. Shieh / Computers & Education 59 (2012) 206–214 211

instructional strategies. The pseudonyms Mr. T, Mr. X, and Ms. Y, are used to identify the three teachers teaching the TEAL class, Class X, and
Class Y, respectively.

4.3.1. Teaching beliefs

Consistent with the students’ reactions, the three teachers also acknowledged that most students regarded studying physics as a chal-
lenging task. Mr. X’s approach to cope with the issue was to arrange lab activities to correspond with the lectures. He believed that
increasing students’ learning interest was the first step to alter their adverse attitudes towards studying physics, and doing hands-on
activities would serve this purpose. In contrast, Ms. Y did not consider lab activities to be helpful for students to learn physics because
she thought that lab work only kept the students active, but not necessarily learning. In her view, teachers’ verbal interpretation and
explanation was the most effective approach to help students learn physics. In order to save time for lecturing, she said she always arranged
all required lab activities at the very beginning of the course and then concentrated on lectures thereafter. She also believed that students’
potential in learning physics was somewhat related to their innate intellectual ability. She mentioned in the first interview:
Based on my experiences, some of the students are obviously not suitable for studying physics. It is too difficult for them. I really wanted
to tell them that they should have chosen social sciences (rather than natural sciences) because they might have better odds at success.
But I couldn’t say that because I didn’t want to frustrate them upfront. (#Ib10928, Sept. 28, 2009)
To Ms. Y, the innate factor greatly affected the student’s learning results, which appears to be contrary to the notion that all students can
learn, as addressed by the National Research Council (1996). Different from Ms. Y’s viewpoint, Mr. T regarded students’ adverse attitudes
toward learning physics as the teacher’s responsibility. He stated that paying close attention to what students did not understand and then
adopting a better instructional method, such as integrating technology-assisted presentations into lectures, would help them more easily
comprehend the abstract concepts. He mentioned that fostering students’ autonomous, active learning habits was the most important task
in the instructional process. In his belief, improving student learning must begin with improving the teacher’s content knowledge and
teaching skills first. He said that only by constantly updating knowledge and skills could teachers effectively help students to obtain the
most current physics knowledge. To this end, Mr. T reported that he often grasped opportunities to attend professional development
programs to acquire new physics knowledge and new pedagogical skills and, if possible, also talk with the attending experts directly to
collect their professional experience and advice. His emphasis on content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge simultaneously appears to
endorse the TCPK concept proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006).

4.3.2. Teaching strategies

Congruent with the students’ statements, Ms. Y also mentioned in the interview that she always made students write down the notes she
put on the blackboard in detail. She explained that requiring students to engage in writing, rather than just sitting there and listening, would
help them concentrate on the lectures. The classroom observation data reveal that not much interaction took place between the teacher and
students in Class Y; Ms. Y was the main speaker in the class. There was, however, more interaction in Mr. X’s class. The observation data show
that Mr. X would set aside time for the students to take turns explaining how they solved their homework problems assigned in the previous
lesson. He explained in the interview that giving students opportunities to discuss and share their problem-solving process helped him
understand their learning difficulties, which in turn helped to modify his lecture focus accordingly.
Mr. T’s teaching practices, according to him, had undergone a tremendous change in recent years. He stated that his instructional method
used to be constrained to the traditional genre. However, after being greatly impressed by the TEAL features demonstrated in a professional
development workshop, he began to rethink his instructional approach and soon he realized that it was high time for him to adopt a more
constructivist teaching style to help students learn physics in a more active and interesting way. When the TEAL studio was constructed on
campus in 2006, he started to teach courses using the TEAL method. The classroom observation indicates that the students in his class were
quite active. A typical situation was when students engaged in IRS-induced peer discussions. In addition to integrating 3-D simulations and
hands-on activities into instruction, Mr. T reported that he also manufactured new auxiliary devices with assistance from the school
technician for students to engage in experimental activities. Moreover, he said that he also encouraged his students to compose and submit
IRS-based questions related to the lessons taught. He explained that the purpose of asking students to make a list of questions was to
encourage them to actively reflect on what they had learned from the lesson. Echoing Calderhead’s (1996) assertion, teachers with different
beliefs about students and student learning are inclined to adopt different sorts of instructional activities and also provide different types of
classroom interaction.

4.4. Attitudes toward technology integration

The collected documents disclosed that 15 workshops and seminars were held at HWHS during 2007–2009. The objective of holding
these workshops/seminars was to train seed educators and teachers nationwide to promote the technology-enabled pedagogy to schools
and universities. In addition, approximately 53 TEAL lessons were offered to nationwide class-based students for them to experience the
TEAL instructional approach. Mr. T was the one demonstrating the TEAL experiments to participants in the workshops. Quite a few teachers
in the workshops reportedly were rather inspired by the innovative pedagogical method and were eager to experience the new approach in
their own schools, but this did not include the other HWHS teachers. Four years later, Mr. T remained the only teacher at HWHS using TEAL
to teach courses.
Both Mr. X and Ms. Y were asked in the interviews why they did not intend to adopt TEAL to teach physics. Ms. Y responded that she did
not believe that technology would help students learn; hence, she did not think it was necessary to integrate technology into her teaching.
She thought that technology tended to distract students’ attention, and as she had stated before, she emphasized again that oral explanation
was the best approach to helping students learn physics. Her conception seems to be completely contrary to the students’ expectations in
terms of wanting more hands-on activities. She added that there was a computer and a projector in the classroom, which she considered
was sufficient for her if she ever needed to use technology. The classroom observation, however, revealed that she did not use any of the
212 R.S. Shieh / Computers & Education 59 (2012) 206–214

equipment available in the classroom. Arzi and White (2007) contended that a teacher is unlikely to commit to change when his/her
knowledge becomes a routine copy of the curriculum.
Mr. X’s response to the question of why he did not use the TEAL studio was that it demanded much more effort and time to prepare
lecture content than teaching in a traditional classroom. Moreover, he said it would be distracting to deliver a lecture while operating
multimedia facilities at the same time, and thus might affect his teaching progress. Nevertheless, he mentioned that he sometimes checked
out lab materials from the TEAL studio for his lab classes (taking place in the traditional lab room). In short, both Mr. X’s and Ms. Y’s attitudes
toward integrating technology into instruction were rather conservative.
In the third interview with Mr. T, he was challenged with the question regarding why the TEAL class did not outperform both control
classes in the learning gain of the FCI if the TEAL pedagogy was regarded so highly. His immediate response to the question was that he
thought the TEAL class, on average, had already outperformed the control classes in many other respects. He explained:
You know, over the past years, there have been more students who once studied in the TEAL class voluntarily taking part in science
projects (outside the class). One of the project teams I guided has just won a masterpiece award from the national science fair in the
physics domain. It was the first time my school ever earned an award at a national level science competition. There is also an
increasing number of students coming to me and asking me about science project matters. I can feel that more students are showing
interest in studying physics. To me, it’s a big accomplishment. (#Ic30824, Aug. 24, 2010)
Coincidently, Ms. Y also mentioned in the end-of-course interview that there were more students engaged in extracurricular science
activities in Mr. T’s classes than in other classes, which she acknowledged was an accomplishment her classes could not keep pace with. Mr.
T further argued that the test result should not be the only indicator reflecting student achievement as a result of the TEAL effect. He said
that inspiring students’ learning enthusiasm and fostering their learning autonomy were more valuable to their future development than
simply acquiring high test scores. Echoing some researchers’ suggestions (e.g. Hake, 2007), multi-faceted assessments, other than
conceptual understanding, such as gauging students’ ability to collaborate and work in groups and to solve real-world problems, are
necessary to measure the effectiveness of a course. Mr. T reported that being fully involved in the innovation project had not only enriched
his content knowledge, improved his pedagogical skills, and expanded his physics purview, but, most importantly, he had also become more
confident in helping students learn physics meaningfully. He added that he would continue disseminating the TEAL pedagogy to teachers
and students until the day he retired.

5. Conclusion

The test results indicate that the TEAL class outperformed the two control classes on both the FCI and MBT tests, though the learning gain
it achieved on the FCI was lower than that achieved by one of the control classes. Compared to the average learning gain (.55  .11 SD)
achieved by the experimental high school students in Hake’s (1998) study, the learning gains achieved by the current TEAL students appear
rather low, though the gain Hake claimed was reportedly obtained for honors rather than regular courses. Hestenes and Halloun (1995) also
contended that an FCI gain below 20% is considered small. Nonetheless, the TEAL students, in general, appeared to be interested in attending
the physics class, and were also more active in participating in science activities outside the class. As the TEAL teacher and several
researchers have contended, student accomplishments resulting from an innovative pedagogy need to be assessed beyond mere test
performance.
It is found that the teachers’ teaching beliefs largely affected their instructional practices and technology integration, in accordance
with findings reported by some earlier researchers. Those who believed that knowledge could be imparted to learners tended to
emphasize the importance of traditional lectures during the instructional process, identical to what Lipman (1991) described as the
standard practice. They were also less likely to encourage student questions that could ignite both student and teacher learning (Arzi &
White, 2007; Hoban, 2002). Consequently students taught by those teachers were also more used to acquiring knowledge through
memorizing formula and repetitively practicing homework questions. Some even considered exercising the same instructional method
should they become teachers in the future. As some researchers have contended, unless teachers perceive a sense of disequilibrium, they
may not engage in change (Arzi & White, 2007; Mezirow, 1991), nor extend their knowledge to new occurrences and search for better
solutions to connect the new beliefs with their preoccupied conceptions (Prawat, 1992). In the current study, exposure to TEAL innovation
appears to have provided a venue which aroused the TEAL teacher’s reflection on his existing knowledge and skills, and he subsequently
attempted to adopt an instructional approach that he believed would better help his professional growth and also help students learn
more effectively.
Some researchers have asserted that teaching experience may be a barrier inhibiting teachers from engaging in reformed practices (e.g.
Prawat, 1992). The TEAL teacher in the current study was the most senior among the three teachers involved; however, he was found to be
the most active and persistent in confronting the challenge of implementing pedagogical innovation. Coherent with the findings disclosed
by Murnane (1985) and Penick and Yager (1983), this study also reveals that it is not only the knowledge obtained from professional
development, but also the teacher’s enthusiasm for and persistence in learning that helped him become so dedicated to achieving ongoing
improvement. The students’ positive responses, such as showing interest in attending class and participating in science projects, also seem
to have played an important role in motivating the teacher’s persistence and dedication.
Professional learning for science teachers is demanded in view of the rapid developments in science and technology (Arzi & White,
2007). Teachers nowadays must constantly learn new techniques and skills as current technologies become obsolete (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006). They are also expected to continuously engage in professional growth, improve their professional practice, and demon-
strate leadership in their professional community by demonstrating the effective use of technological tools and resources (ISTE NETS for
Teachers, 2008). In the current study, plentiful professional development seminars and workshops were offered to teachers; nevertheless,
the majority of the teachers at the studied school did not show interest in being involved. In order for an intervention to have a significant
impact, the professional development program must involve a wide range of participants (Lee, Deaktor, Enders, & Lambert, 2008). How to
motivate more teachers to engage in the pedagogical reform effort is the key to sustaining the TEAL implementation at HWHS in the
future.
 R.S. Shieh / Computers & Education 59 (2012) 206–214 213

6. Discussion

The data of the study lends support to Hoban’s (2002) belief that the quality of student learning in a school relies on the quality of teacher
learning. Teacher learning quality is often reflected in instructional practices. Instructional practices in line with innovation effort can be
reinforced through engaging teachers in teaching belief transformation, improvement in teaching performance, and professional learning.

6.1. Transforming teacher beliefs

As many researchers have indicated, teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning influence their adaption and inclination to innovation
(e.g. Fogleman et al., 2011; Hermans et al., 2008; Pinto, 2005). Recognizing what is problematic in teachers’ beliefs may be the initial step in
the change process (Prawat, 1992). Prawat (1992) asserted that most of the issues related to carrying out a constructivist instructional
method could be resolved if teachers are willing to contemplate what it takes to cultivate this type of understanding in students, in addition
to what it means to know subject matter. A collaborative effort composed of various parties, such as teacher educators, university faculty,
and curriculum developers, helps break down the teachers’ predetermined conceptions (Arzi & White, 2007). It, however, demands a great
deal of discussion and reflection on the part of teachers (Prawat, 1992). In the current study, driving teachers who viewed structured lectures
and note-taking as the most effective instructional method toward believing that integrating technology into lectures may offer a more
interesting, meaningful approach to help students learn inevitably requires a substantial amount of communication, convincing evidence in
terms of student performance, as well as support from various experts in the field.

6.2. Improvement in teaching performance

King (2002) reported that school administrators and standards requiring teachers to update the curriculum, such as engaging in
constantly changing technology, may result in teachers experiencing a feeling of dissatisfaction and then developing an urge to pursue the
needed knowledge and skills. Arzi and White (2007) suggested that science curricula be composed of frequently changing brief subunits,
either adopting new externally prescribed materials or proposing teachers’ own alternatives. Such a suggestion aims at constantly requiring
teachers to renew their content knowledge and teaching practices, as well as exposing students to enthusing innovations. Raising the level
of enthusiasm and commitment of science teachers through peer collaboration helps promote more exciting science teaching (Akpan, 2010).
In the present study, peer collaboration also helps those deficient in technological skills to acquire the needed skills from their more
proficient colleagues in the curriculum redesign process. Joining teachers with advanced technological skills, such as the TEAL teacher, to
design contextualized 3-D simulations and devise lab equipment to help students grasp abstract concepts more meaningfully, while
simultaneously increasing their learning interest, may be a good start to assuring technology integration and instructional improvement.

6.3. Design of professional learning

Teacher learning is the core of professional development initiatives to bring instructional reforms into the classroom (King, 2002;
Ostermeier et al., 2010). When underpinning long-term teacher learning in a professional learning system, Hoban (2002) suggested that
multiple components involving a combination of personal, social and contextual conditions be taken into account in order to encourage
teachers’ dynamic self-adjustment to the change. To meet the participants’ personal and contextual needs, the design of the learning must
be connected to their needs with relevant examples and instruction (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002) and individual teaching interests and
responsibilities, such as integrating technology training into a pedagogical context (Friel et al., 2009). Continuous support for teachers in
various phases of innovation implementation is also critical (Ertmer, 2005; Guskey, 1986; Hoban, 2002; Liu, Lee, & Linn, 2010). Providing
regular feedback on student learning progress to teachers also helps sustain teachers’ involvement in professional learning (Guskey, 1986;
Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010). Professional learning is not simply about workshops and the delivered content; rather, it is mainly about
teachers’ daily, continuous practice after the professional learning that would bring about improvement and change (Fullan, 2007).
Including teachers’ vision and also involving them in decision-making and development from the start of the programs, rather than
implementing systems based merely on the policymakers’ perspective, is pivotal to the success of the innovation programs (Baylor & Ritchie,
2002; Guskey, 1986; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010). Holding public dialogs when designing professional development programs, as suggested
by Ertmer (2005), is also important. In the studied school, conveying the administrators’ intention of technology integration is particularly
necessary in that the teachers’ perceptions of school policies, rather than their technology profiles, as Tondeur et al. (2008) indicated, may be
the major factor affecting their attitudes toward integrating technology into constructivist-oriented practices.

7. Limitations

It should be noted that the findings reported in this study are based on the data collected in one school. Some researchers have argued
that student effect, such as their math and physics preparation and ensuing attitudes and beliefs, rather than instructional strategies, may
greatly influence students’ learning outcomes of the studied courses (e.g. Kost, Pollock, & Finkelstein, 2009). In addition, the TEAL teacher in
this study appears to be an exceptionally enthusiastic and dedicated teacher. To draw a more generalized conclusion, studies involving
a wider range of students, teachers, and schools are needed. Future studies can look into the TEAL effect, as opposed to the student and/or
the teacher effect, through comparing multi-faceted student achievements accomplished by multiple teachers at multiple schools. The
control teachers in the current study only conducted their normal instructional practices in contrast with the TEAL practices. Future
researchers can consider designing three experimental conditions: (1) TEAL (2) no technology active learning, and (3) no technology
didactic learning, as opposed to one experimental group, to more thoroughly examine the effect of active learning in addition to the
technology. Moreover, a number of researchers, such as Beatty, Gerace, Leonard, and Dufresne (2006), regard IRS as a promising instruc-
tional tool for teaching physics. How to design adequate IRS questions to effectively engage students in higher-level thinking, rather than it
merely being viewed as a “fun” tool, also deserves further exploration. Nevertheless, this study examines student performance and teachers’
214 R.S. Shieh / Computers & Education 59 (2012) 206–214

teaching in the pioneer high school implementing the TEAL method in Taiwan, based on both students’ and teachers’ perspectives. It is
hoped that the findings reported in this study will provide useful insights to those who are interested in adopting constructivist-oriented
pedagogy established in a technology-enabled learning environment.

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by the National Science Council (NSC 98-2511-S-271-001).

References

Akpan, B. B. (2010). Innovations in science and technology education through science teacher associations. Science Education International, 21(2), 67–79.
Arzi, H. J., & White, R. T. (2007). Change in teachers’ knowledge of subject matter: a 17 year longitudinal study. Science Education, 92(2), 221–251.
Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education,
39, 395–414.
Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31–39.
Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (1999). Teacher professionalism and the emergence of constructivist-compatible pedagogies. Center for Research on Information Technology and
Organizations. Retrieved June 15, 2011, from. http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc.
Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist-compatible computer use. Report no. 7. Center for Research on Information Technology and
Organizations. Retrieved June 15, 2011, from. http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_7.
Beichner, R., Bernold, L., Burniston, E., Dail, P., Felder, R., Gastineau, J., et al. (1999). Case study of the physics components of an integrated curriculum. American Journal of
Physics, 67, S16–S24.
Belcher, W. J. (2001). Studio physics at MIT. MIT physics annual report 2001. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from. http://web.mit.edu/physics/papers/Belcher_physicsannual_all_01.pdf.
Breslow, L. (2010). Wrestling with pedagogical change: the TEAL initiative at MIT. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(5), 23–29.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: beliefs and knowledge. In D. Berliner, & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan Library
Reference.
Dewey, J. (1938). John Dewey experience & education. London: Collier Books.
Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.. (Original work published 1933).
Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279.
Dori, Y. J., Hult, E., Breslow, L., & Belcher, J. W. (2007). How much have they retained? Making unseen concepts seen in a freshman electromagnetism course at MIT. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 1–25.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149–169.
Friel, T., Britten, J., Compton, B., Peak, A., Schoch, K., & Vantyle, W. K. (2009). Using pedagogical dialogue as a vehicle to encourage faculty technology use. Computers &
Education, 53, 300–307.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Part, CA: Sage Publications.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.
Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand students-survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics course. American Journal
of Physics, 66, 67–74.
Hake, R. (2007). Six lessons from the physics education reform effort. Latin-American Journal of Physics Education, 1(1), 24–31.
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers &
Education, 51, 1499–1509.
Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 33, 502–506.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.
Hestenes, D., & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30, 159–166.
Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
ISTE NETS for Teachers. (2008). Retrieved Oct. 06, 2011, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers.aspx for more detailed information.
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
King, K. P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative learning opportunities. Computers & Education, 39(3), 283–297.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology. (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kost, L. E., Pollock, S. J., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics. Physical review special topics. Physics Education Research, 5(010101), 1–14.
Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Enders, C., & Lambert, J. (2008). Science achievement among elementary students from diverse languages and cultures. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 45(6), 726–747.
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). An investigation of teacher impact on student inquiry science performance using a hierarchical linear model. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 47(7), 807–819.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin,
A SAGE Company.
Lowerison, G., Sclater, J., Schmid, R. F., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Are we using technology for learning? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(4), 401–425.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Baas Inc.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Murnane, R. J. (1985). Do effective teachers have common characteristics: interpreting the quantitative research evidence. In Paper presented at the national research council
conference on teacher quality in science and mathematics, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Retrieved August 14, 2011 from. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id¼4962&page¼1.
Ostermeier, C., Prenzel, M., & Duit, R. (2010). Improving science and mathematics instruction: the SINUS project as an example for reform as teacher professional devel-
opment. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 303–327.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review Psychology, 49, 345–375.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Penick, J. E., & Yager, R. E. (1983). The search for excellence in science education. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(8), 621–623.
Pinto, P. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: identifying teachers’ transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89(1), 1–12.
Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: a constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354–395.
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking process and ICT integration: predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational
technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103–112.
Shieh, R. S., Chang, W., & Liu, Z. F. (2011). Technology enabled active learning (TEAL) in introductory physics: impact on genders and achievement levels. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 27(7), 1082–1099. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/shieh.html.
Shieh, R. S., Chang, W., & Tang, J. (2010). The impact of implementing technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) in university physics in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 19(3), 401–415.
Tondeur, J., van Keer, H., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education, 51, 212–223.