Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2005 ( C© 2005)DOI: 10.1007/s10956-005-8086-z

Effects of Integrating Hypermedia into Elementary ScienceProfessional Development on Science Content Knowledge

Richard Hartshorne1

Past research has indicated that a number of problems in the teaching of science in elemen-tary classrooms are rooted in the preparation of inservice teachers. One continuing concernis elementary teachers’ lack of science content knowledge. As indicated by numerous re-search studies reporting positive results, one method of addressing these problems is throughinservice teacher professional development workshops. While improved content knowledgehas been reported as a positive result of professional development workshops, elementaryscience workshops have not resulted in the same success levels as other subject areas. Onemethod of addressing some of the deficiencies in elementary science professional develop-ment workshops is with the integration of hypermedia into the professional developmentenvironment. This study examined whether the integration of hypermedia into elementaryscience professional development workshops resulted in greater increases in the science con-tent knowledge of elementary teachers of science than traditional methods of elementary sci-ence professional development workshops. Workshops that integrated hypermedia into theprofessional development environment resulted in a significant increase in inservice elemen-tary teachers’ science content knowledge, when compared to the control group. However,when compared to the experimental group that participated in workshops without hyperme-dia, however, there was no significant difference in increases of science content knowledge.Implications of these outcomes are discussed.

KEY WORDS: hypermedia; elementary science; professional development; content knowledge.

INTRODUCTION

In the past decade, there have been manycalls for the reform of the teaching of science atthe elementary level in American public schools(Bybee, 1993; Loucks-Horsley, 1996; National Re-search Council, 1996; Yager, 1993). The foundationof these calls is reliant upon two primary premises.First, recent research indicates that exposure to sci-entific content and processes at young ages results inenhanced scientific performance and improved de-velopment of future scientific skills (Keeves, 1995;Rowe, 1992). One reason for this is that the study

1Department of Educational Leadership, University of NorthCarolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina; e-mail: rhartsho@email.uncc.edu.

of science promotes the development of higher-orderthinking skills, including analytical, evaluative, andproblem-solving ability, which promote scientific lit-eracy (American Association for the Advancementof Science, 1993; Plourde, 2002). Second, research in-dicates a lack of student enrollment in higher levelscience courses (Fraser and Walberg, 1995). The per-formance of American students on international sci-ence assessments is poor when compared to othertechnologically advanced nations (International As-sociation for the Evaluation of Achievement, 1988;Knuth et al., 1991; Plourde, 2002). As a result ofthese two premises, as well as other factors, sciencetopics and skills have been introduced on variousstatewide and national standardized examinations. Inaddition, national science mandates and standardsthat concentrate on the development of science skillshave been introduced into the elementary classrooms

415

1059-0145/05/1200-0415/0 C© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

416 Hartshorne

(American Association for the Advancement of Sci-ence, 1993; National Academy on Science, 1995).

Energies must be expended to improve theteaching of science in elementary classrooms. In aneffort to improve the teaching of science at theelementary level, and ultimately student learning,different instructional strategies have been utilizedand studied. These teaching methods include grouplearning, management by objectives, and smallerclass sizes (Linn and Hsi, 2000). While the levelsfor success of these methods have differed, findingsindicate that merely focusing on the instructionalstrategies used in the classroom are not enough.Due to the role of elementary teachers of science instudents’ academic achievement, elementary teach-ers must be part of the solutions to improve sci-ence learning in elementary classrooms (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Sanders and Rivers, 1996). Tilgner(1990) recommended the use of professional de-velopment workshops as one method of improvingteaching in elementary classrooms. Weiss et al. (1999)discovered that the use of professional developmentworkshops resulted in increased teacher prepared-ness. Other research also reports positive results ofprofessional development, including increased posi-tive attitudes toward specific subject areas (Henson,1987; Tilgner, 1990), increased confidence in teach-ing (Shrigley, 1977), increased student achievement(Anderson and Smith, 1986; Monk, 1994), and im-proved teacher content knowledge (Kahle, 2000).The results of professional development efforts inelementary science, however, have not met withthe same levels of success as other subject areas(Hilliard, 1997; Loucks-Horsley et al., 1996). Thus,different strategies for elementary science profes-sional development need to be implemented andexamined.

What We Know About Hypermedia and Teaching

Numerous studies have reported a variety ofpositive effects on learning outcomes when hyper-media has been integrated into the learning envi-ronment (Baker et al., 1994; Beeman et al., 1988;Jacobson and Spiro, 1995; Jonassen and Wang, 1993;Lehrer, 1993). First, the structure and navigationalfreedom associated with integrating hypermedia intothe learning environment provide multiple enhance-ments to the learning process (Ayersman, 1996;Dillon and Gabbard, 1998; Hede, 2002; Jonassen,1996; Landow, 1992; Nielsen, 1995; Reed and

Oughton, 1997). Hypermedia allows for learners todetermine which, and in what order, information willbe displayed; potentially configuring what, when, andhow learning will transpire. Consequently, the edu-cational experience can be tailored to meet the indi-vidual learner’s unique needs, many of which emergeduring the interaction with the hypermedia environ-ment (Barab et al., 1997). Additionally, hypermediaenvironments allow students in-depth access to in-formation (Collier, 1987), providing complex repre-sentations of basic concepts and comprehensive il-lustrations of more advanced and abstract concepts.As a result of this more thorough exploration of thecontent, students’ visualization of conceptual con-nections of topics is increased (Landow, 1992). Also,through multi-case analyses, more personal interpre-tations of the content are developed by the students(Landow, 1992; Marchionini and Crane, 1994). A sec-ond benefit of hypermedia applications is they ad-dress many of the attributes that foster meaningfullearning, such as allowing for active learner partic-ipation (Landow, 1992; Shyu and Brown, 1995), in-volving complex, contextual situations (Kumar andSherwood, 1997; Jonassen, 1989), promoting reflec-tion (Hede, 2002), and providing and environmentthat is engaging to the learner (Jonassen, 1989).

One method of improving the effectiveness ofprofessional development opportunities for elemen-tary teachers is with the integration of hypermediainto the professional development environment. Hy-permedia has a number of characteristics that canmake it an effective tool for improving inservice op-portunities for elementary teachers of science. It al-lows for the contextualization and interaction withtopics (Kumar and Sherwood, 1997) and potentiallyreduces the amount of time required to access mate-rials on complex issues in various contexts (Collier,1987; Halasz, 1988). Hypermedia also provides formore efficient searches of material (Ayersman andReed, 1998; Burton et al., 1995) and allows forthe exploration of topics from multiple perspec-tives (Astleitner and Leutner, 1995; Ayersman andReed, 1995). Many of the characteristics inherentin hypermedia offer benefits that address the issuesin inservice professional development opportunitiesfor elementary teachers. Professional developmentworkshops offer structured environments for the in-tegration of hypermedia into the professional devel-opment of elementary teachers and address some ofthe current problems of elementary science profes-sional development. This study examined the influ-ences of professional development opportunities that

Science Content Knowledge 417

utilize hypermedia on inservice elementary teachers’science content knowledge.

METHOD

The purpose of this study was to examinethe change in elementary teachers’ science contentknowledge when hypermedia was integrated intoprofessional development opportunities. To accom-plish this, inservice elementary teachers who taughtscience experienced one of two different series ofprofessional development workshops. The first seriesconsisted of professional development workshopsthat used constructivist learning environments topresent content with appropriate instructional strate-gies in the elementary science classroom. The secondseries contained similar content but also included theintegration of hypermedia into the professional de-velopment setting. A control group was also used tomeasure the effects of confounding variables. Thetwo series of professional development workshopswere constructed specifically for this study and con-tained identical content with the exception of the hy-permedia environment.

Participants

A total of 57 inservice teachers participated inthis study with 19 participants in each group. The pro-fessional development workshops consisted of inser-vice teachers from 21 schools in large public schooldistrict in the Southeastern United States. Partici-pants were considered representative of teachers inother areas of the state and nation.

As is consistent with the field of elementary ed-ucation, a majority of the participants in the studywere female (see Table I). All participants in thestudy were either African American or non-HispanicWhite (see Table I). All participants in the studyheld a bachelor’s degree. More than 20% of partici-pants also had a master’s degree in various fields (see

Table I. Personal Characteristics

Control Traditional Hypermedia

Gender (N (%))Male 1 (5) 0 (0) 2 (10)Female 18 (95) 19 (100) 17 (90)

Ethnicity (N (%))African American 5 (26) 7 (36) 1 (5)Non-Hispanic White 14(74) 12 (63) 18 (95)

Table II. Professional Characteristics

Control Traditional Hypermedia

Highest degree obtained (N (%))Bachelor’s 15 (79) 13 (68) 15 (79)Master’s 4 (21) 6 (32) 4 (21)

Grade level taughtK 0 1 31st 1 3 32nd 2 1 33rd 4 3 64th 7 5 15th 5 6 3

Years of teaching1–5 8 9 66–10 3 3 411–15 1 1 216–20 3 1 320+ 4 5 4

Table II). Most of the participants in the study taughtthe upper elementary grade level (see Table II). Theclassroom teaching experience of study participantsvaried greatly with a range of less than 1 to morethan 20 years. While the majority of participants havebeen teaching for less than 5 years, there were also anumber of participants who have been teaching formore than 20 years (see Table II).

Science professional development plays a signif-icant role in the continuing education of teachers.Many opportunities in a variety of formats are pro-vided during the school year and in the summer. Themajority of teachers participating in this study hadnot participated in science professional developmentactivities within the past year (61.4%), and more thana third of participants had not participated in sci-ence professional development for more than 3 years(36.8%).

Because the activities in this study integrated theuse of computers and hypermedia into the elemen-tary science professional development workshops, itwas important to have participants self-report theircomfort level and feelings toward computers andhypermedia. Participants’ comfort level and experi-ence with computers in this study were varied. Al-most 90% of the participants considered themselvesto have at least an “average” comfort level withcomputers, while slightly more than 10% consideredthemselves “beginners” (see Table III).

While most participants felt comfortable withcomputers, this was not the case with hypermedia.A large percentage of participants (61.4%) were notfamiliar with hypermedia and 12.3% were “begin-ners” with hypermedia. Just over a quarter of the

418 Hartshorne

Table III. Technological Comfort Level and Experience

Control Traditional Hypermedia

Comfort level withcomputers

Beg. 0 4 2Avg. 14 7 10Exp. 4 8 7Adv. 1 0 0

Comfort level withhypermedia

None 11 9 15Beg. 3 2 2Avg. 2 6 1Exp. 2 2 1Adv. 1 0 0

Weekly hours of usingcomputer forinstructional purposes

0 1 4 61–2 12 8 53–4 2 5 45–6 3 1 26+ 1 1 2

Weekly hours of usingcomputer forproductivity purposes

0 0 2 21–2 9 4 73–4 5 7 65–6 2 2 26+ 3 4 2

participants (26.3%) felt they had either “average,”“experienced,” or “advanced” experience with hy-permedia (see Table III).

Computer usage for participants also varied. Al-most 80% of participants used computers for instruc-tional purposes on a weekly basis. Almost 45% ofparticipants used computers for instructional pur-poses from 1 to 2 h per week and slightly more thana third (35%) used computers for instructional pur-poses more than 3 h weekly (see Table III).

Participants in this study used computers forteacher productivity purposes more often than for in-structional purposes. More than 90% of participantsused a computer each week for teacher productiv-ity purposes. More than a third of the participants(35.1%) used computers for productivity purposesbetween 1 and 2 h a week and over half (55%) usedcomputers for 3 or more hours a week for productiv-ity purposes (see Table III).

Because the activities in this study addressedtopics related to science in the elementary classroom,it was important to examine the participants’ sciencecomfort level, content knowledge, and attitudes to-

Table IV. Comfort Level with Science

Control Traditional Hypermedia

Do you feel comfortableteaching science? (N (%))

Yes 17 (90) 17 (90) 16 (84)No 2 (10) 2 (10) 3 (16)

Do you feel you haveenough science contentknowledge? (N (%))

Yes 11 (58) 10 (53) 11 (58)No 8 (42) 9 (47) 8 (42)

Do you like science?(N (%))

Yes 17 (90) 19 (100) 18 (95)No 2 (10) 0 (0) 1 (5)

ward science. While most participants liked scienceand were comfortable teaching it, more than 40% feltthey did not possess enough content knowledge to ef-fectively teach science (see Table IV).

Procedure

In this study, a non-equivalent control groupquasi-experimental design was used (Affleck et al.,1988). Three groups, a control group and two experi-mental groups, were examined in this study. Partic-ipants in the control group received no treatment.Participants in the first experimental group partic-ipated in a series of traditional elementary scienceprofessional development workshops that did not in-clude hypermedia. Participants in the second experi-mental group participated in similar treatments, withthe integration of hypermedia into the professionaldevelopment environment.

The professional development workshops wereconducted during a 3-weeks period. During this 3-weeks period, were a total of 6 h of elementary sci-ence professional development workshops dividedinto 2 h segments. Because student scores on thePhysical and Chemical Sciences and the ScientificThinking sections of the Florida Comprehensive As-sessment Test (FCAT) Elementary Science Examwere below the state average, the professional devel-opment workshops were designed to address theseareas. Workshop topics included energy, electricity,and Newton’s laws of motion from the physical andchemical sciences; and measurement, observation,experimentation, and the scientific method from thearea of scientific thinking.

All differences in the workshops were relatedto the method in which activities were retrieved and

Science Content Knowledge 419

illustrated, the method in which topics were retrievedand presented, and the manner in which lesson re-views were read and written. For the traditionalgroup, all workshop materials were contained in aworkshop handbook. For the hypermedia group, ma-terials were accessed via the hypermedia environ-ment Elementary Level Lessons in Physical Science(ELLIPS).

Assignment to Groups

As previously mentioned, this research studyhad 57 participants in three groups: control, hyper-media, and traditional. Due to issues related to avail-ability of participants, duration of the workshops,and lab space for the workshops, random assignmentwas not implemented in this study. During the re-cruitment process, teachers were asked to register forone of two series of workshops (either Tuesdays orThursdays), unaware of any differences between theseries of workshops. The researcher decided prior tothe selection of teachers that the Tuesday workshopswould be the hypermedia group and the Thursdayworkshops would comprise the traditional group.Control group participants were recruited from thesame school district. These participants consisted ofteachers who were asked to complete the pretestand post-test measures at designated times. Controlgroup participants were aware they would not be re-ceiving a treatment.

Interventions

Due to the fact that inservice elementary teach-ers are often inexperienced with physical sciencecontent (Harlen and Holroyd, 1997; Hurd, 1982;Stevens and Wenner, 1996; Tilgner, 1990; Weiss,1994), a hypermedia environment was designed toaid in the structuring and organization of the ma-terial. The Elementary Level Lessons in PhysicalScience (ELLIPS) is a web-based hypermedia envi-ronment developed for inservice elementary teach-ers of science, and contains a number of organiza-tional components and teacher resources. The mostprominent feature of ELLIPS is a collection of cat-egorically searchable elementary school level phys-ical science activities and lesson plans. Search cat-egories include the topic/subject, type of activity,grade level, amount of equipment needed, and theSunshine State Standards (statewide academic stan-dards for all K-12 Florida students). A second fea-

ture of ELLIPS includes a collection of searchableteacher content resources. The teacher content re-sources are only searchable based on a list of topicswhich is identical to the topic list for the activities andlesson plans. One communicative tool that ELLIPShas is a discussion board. With this tool, teachers canpost a variety of issues and questions, as well as replyto topics posted by other participants. A final featureof ELLIPS is the lesson review feature. With this fea-ture, users can comment on existing lessons withinthe hypermedia environment. These comments caninclude reviews of the lessons or helpful tips for im-plementing individual lessons. Other participants canthen access these reviews when searching for lessonplans.

Instrumentation

The Project to Improve Elementary Science(PIES) Science Knowledge Test is a 25-itemmultiple-choice instrument designed by Zielinski andSmith (1990) to evaluate the effectiveness of thePIES Project. The instrument was derived from anoriginal PIES test that included 50 multiple-choiceitems and had a test–retest reliability of R = 0.67 us-ing 24 participants over a 2-weeks period. The in-strument was designed to measure participants’ com-prehension of basic science principles and processes.Areas of science content addressed by this instru-ment include life sciences, earth sciences, and phys-ical sciences. Science processes addressed by this in-strument include data analysis, data clarification, andidentification of variables. An internal consistency ofR = 0.89 was determined using Kuder-Richardson-20 procedures (Zielinski and Smith, 1990). A copy ofthe instrument used in this research is available fromthe author (Hartshorne, 2004).

Design and Data Analysis

In this study, a non-equivalent control groupquasi-experimental design was used (Affleck et al.,1988). This was done because group randomizationwas not possible and, while the groups were simi-lar, they were not similar enough to eliminate pretestmeasures (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). While thisdesign is not as strong as a true experimental design,non-equivalent control group quasi-experimental de-signs are widely used (Gall, Borg, and Gall, 1996).

The scores of the PIES Science KnowledgeExam were analyzed by examining the range and

420 Hartshorne

means of the pretest and post-test scores to as-sess changes in science content knowledge. Allquantitative data was analyzed using the Statisti-cal Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). In or-der to control the effects of the covariates andincrease statistical power, an analysis of covari-ance (ANCOVA) was conducted to determineif significant main effects and interaction effectswere present (Borg and Gall, 1989). Significantdifferences in means were measured using a prob-ability value of p < 0.05. The pretest served as thebaseline measure for science content knowledge. Insituations in which there were significant effects or ef-fects approaching significance, Tukey HSD post-hocpairwise comparisons were conducted to further ex-amine differences between groups and to control fortype I error across additional comparisons.

RESULTS

Means and standard deviations of science con-tent knowledge for each group, as measured by theProject to Improve Elementary Science (PIES) Sci-ence Content Knowledge Test, are presented in Ta-ble V. Pretest scores were greatest for the hyper-media group (M = 16.37, SD = 3.56), followed bythe traditional group (M = 15.95, SD = 3.75), andthe control group (M = 15.63, SD = 2.83). Post-testscores were greatest for the hypermedia group (M =19.38, SD = 1.73), followed closely by the traditionalgroup (M = 19.26, SD = 2.45), and concluding withthe control group (M = 16.11, SD = 2.75). To an-alyze the results of each group’s pretest and post-test scores for science content knowledge, an anal-ysis of covariance was conducted. In this analysis,the fixed factor was the group (treatment) with threelevels (control, traditional, and hypermedia), the co-variate was the PIES Science Content Knowledgepretest score, and the dependent variable was thePIES Science Content Knowledge post-test score.Results of the ANCOVA (see Table VI) revealed

Table V. Means and Standard Deviations of Science ContentKnowledge Scores (n = 19)

Pretest Post-test

Group M SD M SD

Control 15.63 2.83 16.11 2.75Traditional 15.95 3.75 19.26 2.45Hypermedia 16.37 3.56 19.38 1.73

Table VI. Analysis of Covariance Summary Table

Source SS df MS F p η2

Corrected model 289.65 5 57.93 19.27 .000 .654Intercept 268.61 1 268.60 89.34 .000 .637Group 68.81 2 34.41 11.44 .000 .310PIESPRE 128.63 1 128.63 42.78 .000 .456Group × PIESPRE 40.16 2 20.08 6.68 .003 .208Error 153.34 51 3.01Total 19638.00 57Corrected total 442.98 56

Note. R2 = 0.654 (adjusted R2 = 0.620).

that the pretest covariate was significantly related tothe corresponding post-test scores (F = 42.78, p <

0.001, ES = 0.46), and the professional developmentworkshops (groups) explained 62% of the variancein the post-test (adjusted R2 = 0.62). There were alsosignificant group effects (F = 11.44, p < 0.001, ES =0.31) and interaction effects between the pretestscores and the groups (F = 6.679, p = 0.003, ES =0.208)

It appears that there may have been a main ef-fect (F = 11.44, p < 0.001, ES = 0.31) of the treat-ment on science content knowledge. However, thismay be somewhat misleading because of the interac-tion effect between the pretest scores and the groups(F = 6.68, p < 0.003, ES = 0.21). In essence, the ef-fects of the treatment (groups) depended on thepretest scores. To examine the interaction effects, aplot of pretest and post-test scores for each group wasinvestigated (see Fig. 1).

For the control group members, PIES ScienceKnowledge Test pretest and post-test scores corre-lated highly (R = 0.79), as reflected in Fig. 1. Con-trol group participants with low PIES Science Knowl-edge Test pretest scores also had low PIES ScienceKnowledge Test post-test scores. Control group par-ticipants with high PIES Science Knowledge Testpretest scores also had high PIES Science Knowl-edge Test post-test scores. Overall, there was lit-tle increase in science content knowledge scores forthe control group. For traditional group members,PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest and post-testscores had a smaller correlation (R = 0.24). Tra-ditional group participants with low PIES ScienceKnowledge Test pretest scores had relatively largeincreases in PIES Science Knowledge Test post-test scores. Traditional group participants with highPIES Science Knowledge Test pretest scores hadsmaller increases in PIES Science Knowledge Testpost-test scores. This indicated that the professional

Science Content Knowledge 421

Fig. 1. Plot of PIES pretest and post-test scores for each group.

development workshops had a more significant pos-itive influence on the science content knowledge ofparticipants that entered the professional develop-ment setting with limited science content knowledgeand less influence on the science content knowledgeof participants that entered the professional develop-ment setting with more science content knowledge.This trend was similar for the hypermedia group.Hypermedia group participants with low PIES Sci-ence Knowledge Test pretest scores had relativelylarge increases in PIES Science Knowledge Testpost-test scores. Hypermedia group participants withhigh PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest scoreshad smaller increases in PIES Science KnowledgeTest post-test scores. Again, this indicated that theprofessional development workshops with hyperme-dia had a more significant positive influence on thescience content knowledge of participants that en-tered the professional development setting with lim-ited science content knowledge and less influence onthe science content knowledge of participants thatentered the professional development environmentwith more science content knowledge. Evidence ofthese interaction effects is presented in Fig. 1.

In determining the extent to which the treatment(the use of hypermedia) influenced changes in sci-ence content knowledge, the effect size was exam-ined. The effect size for the change in science con-

tent knowledge indicated a small practical signifi-cance (ES = 0.31). Examining the mean score gains,the growth in science content knowledge was greaterfor the traditional group (3.31) and the hypermediagroup (3.01) than it was for the control group (0.48).This analysis shows the traditional group had thegreatest growth in science content knowledge, fol-lowed closely by the hypermedia group. There waslittle growth in science content knowledge for thecontrol group. Hence, the extent of the hypermediaenvironment workshops on growth in science contentknowledge was negligible.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the resulting lack of a signifi-cant difference in the increases in science contentknowledge of the hypermedia group and the tra-ditional group is important to note. Both groups,however, did have significantly greater increases inscience content knowledge than the control group.Examining the statistical results, this study providesevidence that the integration of hypermedia intothe professional development environment does notresult in significantly smaller increases in science con-tent knowledge. In other words, integrating hyper-media into the professional development environ-ment can result in content knowledge increases thatare at least equal to traditional professional devel-opment settings. This is important for a number ofreasons.

First, hypermedia environments have the poten-tial to more adequately address individual needs ofinservice teachers than traditional professional de-velopment settings. Second, one major goal of ed-ucation, at any level, is the creation of new men-tal schemas that promote our ability to make senseof and adapt to changes in our world. Accord-ing to Piaget (1970) and Vygotsky (1978), this isaccomplished by interacting with our surroundingphysical and social worlds. In a professional de-velopment environment, hypermedia allows this tobe done more easily. Third, integrating hyperme-dia into professional development opportunities in-creases access to both professional development op-portunities and teacher resources. In this study,for example, inservice teachers left the professionaldevelopment setting with access to numerous lessons,content resources, and communication tools. Finally,integrating hypermedia into professional develop-ment environment promotes collaborative learning.

422 Hartshorne

According to Bruner (1961), Vygotsky (1978), andPiaget (1970), learners should not be isolated in thelearning environment, but should be engaged in a di-alogue. Integrating hypermedia into the professionaldevelopment environment encourages dialogue andpromotes a more meaningful learning environment(Spencer, 1991). Hence, while empirical researchersare still interested in statistical significance, it is stillimportant to consider the educational importanceof various instructional technologies and methodsas well as the added value of the integration oftechnology into the learning environment (McIsaacand Gunawardena, 1996). Integrating hypermediainto the professional development setting resulted inequivalent increases in science content knowledge asin the traditional professional development setting.The added value of integrating hypermedia into thelearning environment offers promising reasons forproviding elementary science professional develop-ment opportunities that include the integration ofhypermedia.

RECOMMENDATIONS FORFUTURE RESEARCH

The goal of this study was to investigate the ef-fects of integrating hypermedia into elementary sci-ence professional development workshops on sci-ence content knowledge. The results of this studyprovide some encouraging results, but also lead tonew questions. As a caveat, groups could have beendifferent on other variables besides the covariates,such as teaching experience and hypermedia expe-rience. Hence, the need for further research. Basedon this idea, as well as the limitations and findingsfor this study, the following are suggestions for futureresearch.

One of the limitations of this study was thatthere were no measures of the effectiveness of theteachers’ growth in terms of their students’ achieve-ment. As a result, it would be beneficial to furtherstudy whether or not the increases in science contentknowledge by teachers influence student achieve-ment. Measures of student achievement would pro-vide information on whether or not integrating hy-permedia into the professional development settinginfluenced teacher behaviors in the classroom. Moreimportantly, measures of student achievement wouldprovide information on whether or not increases inteacher content knowledge influence student perfor-mance in elementary science.

Another limitation of this study was there wereno measures of treatment effects over time. It wouldbe beneficial to administer the measures of sciencecontent knowledge at various time intervals in the fu-ture in an attempt to examine the sustained effects ofintegrating hypermedia into elementary science pro-fessional development workshops. This would alsoassist in determining whether or not initial increasesin content knowledge and positive attitudes towardscience were superficial or substantial.

The structured settings of workshops may notprovide environments that are conducive to thestrengths of hypermedia. One of the basic tenets ofhypermedia is that the user controls his own learn-ing. However, this is often difficult to attain in pro-fessional development workshop settings. Thus, re-search addressing the integration of hypermedia intoadditional, less structured professional developmentsituations might result in more positive increases inscience content knowledge.

Another beneficial research focus would be theexamination of specific hypermedia characteristicsthat result in greater teacher and student growth.In this study, for example, a variety of hyperme-dia tools were used. These included a discussionboard, teacher content resources, multiple lessonsearch features, and a lesson review feature. Thesecharacteristics were integrated into the hypermediaenvironment in an effort to address problems inelementary science education. Future research, how-ever, should examine which hypermedia elementshave the greatest influence on increases in teachers’science content knowledge, and ultimately studentachievement.

REFERENCES

Affleck, J. Q., Madge, S., Adams, A., and Lowenbraun, S. (1988).Integrated classroom versus resource model: Academic via-bility and effectiveness. Exceptional Children 54: 339–348.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993).Science for All Americans: Project 2061, Oxford UniversityPress, New York.

Anderson, C. W., and Smith, E. L. (1986). Teaching Science, Insti-tute of Research on Teaching, East Lansing, MI.

Astleitner, H., and Leutner, D. (1995). Learning strategies for un-structured hypermedia: A framework for theory, research,and practice. Journal of Educational Computing Research 13:387–400.

Ayersman, D. J. (1996). Reviewing the research on hypermedia-based learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Educa-tion 28: 500–520.

Ayersman, D. J., and Reed, W. M. (1995). The impact of instruc-tional design and hypermedia software type on graduate stu-dents’ use of theoretical models. Computers in Human Behav-ior 11: 557–580.

Science Content Knowledge 423

Ayersman, D. J., and Reed, W. M. (1998). Relationships amonghypermedia-based mental models and hypermedia knowl-edge. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 30:222–240.

Baker, E. L., Niemi, D., and Herl, H. (1994). Using hypercardtechnology to measure understanding. In Baker, E. L., andO’Neil, H. F., Jr. (Eds.), Technology Assessment In Educationand Training, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 133–152.

Barab, S. A., Bowdish, B. E., and Lawless, K. A. (1997). Hyper-media navigation: Profiles of hypermedia users. EducationalTechnology Research and Development 45: 23–41.

Beeman, W. O., Anderson, K. T., Bader, G., Larkin, J., McClard,A. P., McQuillan, P. J., and Shields, M. (1988). Intermedia: ACase Study of Innovation in Higher Education (Final reportto the Annenberg/CPB Project), Brown University, Office ofProgram Analysis, Institute for Research in Information andScholarship, Providence, RI.

Borg, W. R., and Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational Research: AnIntroduction (5th edn.), Longman, New York.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard EducationalReview 31: 21–32.

Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., and Holmes, G. A. (1995). Hyperme-dia concepts and research: An overview. Computers in Hu-man Behavior 11: 345–369.

Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming Science Education: Social Per-spectives and Personal Reflections, Teachers College Press,New York.

Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental andQuasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Houghton Mifflin,Boston.

Collier, G. H. (1987). Thoth-II: Hypertext with explicit semantics.Proceeding of the ACM conference on Hypertext, ACM Press,New York, pp. 269–289.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and studentachievement: A review of state policy evidence. EducationPolicy Analysis Archives 8(1). Retrieved May 14, 2004, fromhttp://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/

Dillon, A., and Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educationaltechnology: A review of the quantitative research literatureon learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Edu-cational Research 68: 322–349.

Fraser, B. J., and Walberg, R. J. (1995). Improving Science Educa-tion, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., and Gall, J. P. (1996). Educa-tional research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY:Longman.

Halasz, F. G. (1988). Reflections on notecards: Seven issues forthe next generation of hypermedia systems. Communicationsof the ACM 31: 836–852.

Harlen, W., and Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understand-ing of concepts in science impact on confidence and teaching.International Journal of Science Education 19: 93–105.

Hartshorne, C. R. (2004). Integrating hypermedia into elemen-tary teachers’ science professional development opportuni-ties: The effects on content knowledge and attitudes to-ward science. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Florida,Gainesville, FL.

Hede, A. (2002). An integrated model of multimedia effects onlearning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia11: 177–199.

Henson, K. T. (1987). Strategies for overcoming barriers to educa-tional change. NASSP Bulletin 71: 125–127.

Hilliard, A. (1997). The structure of valid staff development. Jour-nal of Staff Development 18: 28–34.

Hurd, P. D. (1982). Scientific enlightenment for an age of science.The Science Teacher 37: 13–15.

International Association for the Evaluation of Achievement.(1988). Science Achievement in Seventeen Countries: A pre-liminary report, Pergamon, Oxford, UK.

Jacobson, M. J., and Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning en-vironments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complexknowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educa-tional Computing Research 12: 301–333.

Jonassen, D. H. (1989). Hypertext/Hypermedia, Educational Tech-nology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools forCritical Thinking, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Jonassen, D. H., and Wang, S. (1993). Acquiring structuralknowledge from semantically structured hypertext. Journal ofComputer-Based Instruction 20: 1–8.

Kahle, J. B. (2000). Teacher professional development: Doesit make a difference in student learning? Draft testi-mony for U.S. House of Representatives Committee onScience.

Keeves, J. P. (1995). Cross-national comparisons of outcomes inscience education. In Fraser, B. J., and Walberg, R. J. (Eds.),Improving Science Education, University of Chicago Press,Chicago, pp. 211–233.

Knuth, R. A., Jones, B. F., and Baxendale, S. (1991). Whatdoes research say about science? Retrieved October 15,2003, from NCREL, EDUTECH web site: http://agora.unige.ch/tecfa/edutech/welcome frame.html

Kumar, D., and Sherwood, R. (1997). Hypermedia in science andmathematics: Applications in teacher education. Journal ofEducational Computing Research 17: 249–262.

Landow, G. (1992). Hypertext: The Convergence of ContemporaryCritical Theory and Technology, Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, Baltimore..

Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermediadesign. In Lajoie, S. P., and Derry, S. J. (Eds.), Computers asCognitive Tools, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 197–227

Linn, M. C., and Hsi, S. (2000). Computer, Teachers, Peers: ScienceLearning Partners. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). Reforming Professional Development.Paper presented at the NSTA Workshops.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., and Hewson, P. (1996). Prin-ciples of effective professional development for mathe-matics and science education: A synthesis of standards.NISE Brief, (1) 1. National Institute for Science Education,Madison, WI.

Marchionini, G., and Crane, G. (1994). Evaluating hypermediaand learning: Methods and results from the Perseus Project.ACM Transactions on Information Systems 12: 5–34.

McIsaac, M. S., and Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distance Educa-tion. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Ed-ucational Communications and Technology, Simon & Schus-ter Macmillan, New York.

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary math-ematics and science teachers and student achievement. Eco-nomics of Education Review 13: 125–145.

National Academy on Science (1995). The National Science Ed-ucation Standards, National Academies Press, Washington,DC.

National Research Council (1996). National Science Educa-tion Standards, National Academies Press, Washington,DC. Retrieved October 14, 2003, from http://nap.edu/catalog/4962.html.

Nielsen, J. (1995). Multimedia and Hypertext: The Internet andBeyond, Academic Press, London.

Piaget, J. (1970). The Science of Education and the Psychology ofthe Child, Grossman, New York.

Plourde, L. (2002). Elementary science education: The influenceof student teaching—Where it all begins. Education 123: 253–259.

Reed, W. M., and Oughton, J. M. (1997). Computer experienceand interval-based hypermedia navigation. Journal of Re-search on Computing in Education 30(1): 38–52.

424 Hartshorne

Rowe, M. B. (1992). Science education, elementary schools.In Alkin, M. C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Re-search, (6th edn.), Macmillan, New York, pp. 1172–1177.

Sanders, W. L., and Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and ResidualEffects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement,University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assess-ment Center, Knoxville, TN.

Shrigley, R. (1977). The function of professional reinforcement insupporting a more positive attitude of elementary teachers to-ward science. Journal of Research in science Teaching 14: 317–322.

Shyu, H., and Brown, S. (1995). Learner-control: The effects oflearning a procedural task during computer based videodiskinstruction. International Journal of Instructional Media 22:217–231.

Spencer, K. A. (1991). Modes, media, and methods: The searchfor educational effectiveness. British Journal of EducationalTechnology 22: 12–22.

Stevens, C., and Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teach-ers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding science and mathemat-ics. School Science and Mathematics 96: 2–9.

Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school.Science Education 74: 421–431.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Weiss, I. R. (1994). A Profile of Science and Mathematics Educa-

tion in the United States: 1993, Horizon Research, Chapel Hill,NC.

Weiss, I. R., Gellatly, G., Montgomery, D. L., Ridgway, C. J.,Templeton, C., and Whittington, D. (1999). Local SystemicChange Through Teacher Enhancement: Year four Cross-siteReport, Horizon Research, Chapel Hill, NC.

Yager, R. (1993). The need for reform in science teacher educa-tion. Journal of Science Teacher Education 4: 144–148.

Zielinski, E. J., and Smith, B. G. (1990, April). An Evaluation ofthe program to improve elementary science (PIES). Paper pre-sented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association forResearch in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.