You are here:

Using Cloud-Computing Applications to Support Collaborative Scientific Inquiry: Examining Pre-Service Teachers' Perceived Barriers to Integration


CJLT Volume 39, Number 3, ISSN 1499-6677 e-ISSN 1499-6677 Publisher: Canadian Network for Innovation in Education


Technology plays a crucial role in facilitating collaboration within the scientific community. Cloud-computing applications, such as Google Drive, can be used to model such collaboration and support inquiry within the secondary science classroom. Little is known about pre-service teachers' beliefs related to the envisioned use of collaborative, cloud-based technologies. These beliefs may influence future integration. This study finds several first-order barriers, such as perceptions that these tools would take too much time to use. Second-order barriers include perceptions that this technology would not promote face-to-face collaboration skills, would create classroom management challenges, and beliefs that the technology does not help students understand the nature of science. Suggestions for mitigating these barriers within preservice education technology courses are discussed.


Donna, J.D. & Miller, B.G. (2013). Using Cloud-Computing Applications to Support Collaborative Scientific Inquiry: Examining Pre-Service Teachers' Perceived Barriers to Integration. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 39(3),. Canadian Network for Innovation in Education. Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .

This record was imported from ERIC on November 3, 2015. [Original Record]

ERIC is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education.

Copyright for this record is held by the content creator. For more details see ERIC's copyright policy.


View References & Citations Map


  1. Bodzin, A.M., & Cates, W.M. (2002). Inquiry dot com. The Science Teacher, 12, 48-52.
  2. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  3. Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Pre-service teachers: Are we thinking with technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 342-361.
  4. Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 2539.
  5. Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for Science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 39-60. Retrieved form
  6. Friedrichsen, P.M., Dana, T.M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2001). Learning to teach with technology model: implementation in secondary science teacher education. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(4), 377-394.
  7. Gerard, L.F., Varma, K., Corliss, S.B., & Linn, M.C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408-448.
  8. Guzey, S.S., & Roehrig, G.H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from
  9. Hew, K.F., Brush T. (2006). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational technology research development, 55(3), 223-252. Retrieved from Ae365701ff4&pi=0
  10. International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National Educational Technology Standards for Students. Eugene, OR: Author
  11. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J., Kreijn, K., & Jelle Beers, P. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 44-66.
  12. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  13. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  14. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  15. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Cloud-­‐computing Barriers 16
  16. National Research Council. (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  17. National Science Teachers Association. (1999). NSTA position statement: The use of computers in science education. Retrieved from
  18. Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509-523.
  19. Olson, G.M., Zimmerman, A., & Bos, N. (2008). Scientific collaboration on the internet. Cambridge: MIT.
  20. University of California Museum of Paleontology. (2011). Understanding science. Retrieved from
  21. Yerrick, R., & Hoving, T. (1999). Obstacles confronting technology initiatives as seen through the experience of science teachers: A comparative study of science teachers' beliefs, planning, and practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 291-307.
  22. Webb, M. (2008). Impact of IT on science education. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (eds.) International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, (133–148). New York, NY: Springer.
  23. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112-143.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact