You are here:

Comparison of Technology Use Between Biology and Physics Teachers in a 1:1 Laptop Environment

, , , University of Sydney, Australia

CITE Journal Volume 15, Number 2, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


Using a mixed-methods approach the authors compared the associated practices of senior physics teachers (n = 7) and students (n = 53) in a 1:1 laptop environment with those of senior biology teachers (n = 10) and students (n = 125) also in a 1:1 laptop environment, in seven high schools in Sydney, NSW, Australia. They found that the physics teachers and students reported more use of their laptops than did their biology counterparts, particularly in regard to higher order, engaging activities such as simulations. This disparity is consistent with the differences between the prescribed NSW physics and biology curriculum documents. The physics curriculum specifies that students should engage with various technologies (especially simulations) frequently within the course content, while the biology curriculum makes only generic statements within the course outline. Due to the curriculum mandate, physics teachers seemed to be capitalizing on the opportunities afforded by the 1:1 laptop environment, whereas the biology teachers had less of a mandate and, consequently, incorporated less technology in their teaching.


Crook, S.J., Sharma, M.D. & Wilson, R. (2015). Comparison of Technology Use Between Biology and Physics Teachers in a 1:1 Laptop Environment. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 126-160. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Ainley, J., Eveleigh, F., Freeman, C., & O'Malley, K. (2010). ICT in the teaching of science and mathematics in Year 8 in Australia: Report from the IEA Second International Technology in Education Study (SITES) survey. Retrieved from the Australian Council for Educational Research website: Cgi?article=1005&context=acer_monographs
  2. Alev, N., & Yiğit, N. (2011, September). Physics student teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Using video to promote reflection on
  3. Australian Industry Group. (2013). Lifting our science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) skills. Melbourne, AU: Author. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2)
  4. Baggott laVelle, L., Wishart, J., McFarlane, A., Brawn, R., & John, P. (2007). Teaching and learning with ICT within the subject culture of secondary school science. Research in Science& Technological Education, 25(3), 339-349. Doi:10.1080/02635140701535158
  5. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2008). Girls’ biology, boys’ physics: evidence from freechoice science learning settings. Research in Science& Technological Education, 26(1), 75-92. Doi:10.1080/02635140701847538
  6. Beckman, K., Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2014). Understanding students' use and value of technology for learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 1-22.
  7. Bingimlas, K.A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science& Technology Education, 5(3). Retrieved from
  8. Bryan, J. (2006). Technology for physics instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2), 230-245.
  9. Crook, S.J., & Sharma, M.D. (2013). Bloom-ing heck! The activities of Australian science teachers and students two years into a 1:1 laptop program across 14 high schools. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 21(1), 54-69. Retrieved from CAL/article/view/6674/
  10. Crook, S.J., Sharma, M.D., & Wilson, R. (2015). An evaluation of the impact of 1:1 laptops on student attainment in senior high school sciences. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2). Doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.982229
  11. Crook, S.J., Sharma, M.D., Wilson, R., & Muller, D.A. (2013). Seeing eye-to-eye on ICT: Science student and teacher perceptions of laptop use across 14 Australian schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29 (1), 82-95. Retrieved from
  12. Dandolopartners. (2013). DER mid-program review: Assessing progress of the DER and potential future directions (Final report). Retrieved from
  13. Digital Education Advisory Group. (2013). Beyond the classroom: A new digital education for young Australians in the 21st century. Canberra, AU: DEEWR.
  14. Dunleavy, M., & Heinecke, W.F. (2008). The impact of 1:1 laptop use on middle school math and science standardized test scores. Computers in the Schools, 24(3-4), 7-22. Doi:10.1300/J025v24n03_02e Silva, J.C. (2014). What international studies say about the importance and limitations of using computers to teach mathematics in secondary schools. In S. Watt, J. Davenport, A. Sexton, P. Sojka, & J. Urban (Eds.),Intelligent computer mathematics (Vol. 8543, pp. 1-11). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
  15. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. .
  16. Fraser, J.M., Timan, A.L., Miller, K., Dowd, J.E., Tucker, L., & Mazur, E. (2014). Teaching and physics education research: Bridging the gap. Reports on Progress in Physics, 77(3), 032401.
  17. Fullarton, S., Walker, M., Ainley, J., & Hillman, K. (2003). Patterns of participation in Year 12: Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (Research Report No. 33). Retrieved from the Australian Council for Educational Research website:
  18. 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.
  19. Guzey, S.S., & Roehrig, G.H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers' development of
  20. Howard, S., & Mozejko, A. (2013). Digital education revolution in New South Wales Evaluation: Conclusions on student and teacher engagement and ICT use. Retrieved from H_Wales_DER-NSW_Evaluation_Conclusions_on_student_and_teacher_engagement_ and_ICT_use_Report_presented_by
  21. Hsu, Y.-S. (2008). Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced environment: The impact of teacher-guided and student-centered instructional approaches on the process of students' conceptual change. Science Education, 92(2), 320-344. Doi: 10.1002/sce.20242
  22. Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers& Education, 55(3), 1259-1269. Doi:10.1016/J.compedu.2010.05.022
  23. Kaplowitz, M.D., Hadlock, T.D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94-101.
  24. Kim, M.C., Hannafin, M.J., & Bryan, L.A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010-1030. Doi:10.1002/sce.20219ContemporaryIssues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2)
  25. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
  26. Linn, M.C., Gerard, L., Ryoo, K., McElhaney, K., Liu, O.L., & Rafferty, A.N. (2014). Computer-guided inquiry to improve science learning. Science, 344(6180), 155-156.
  27. Luu, K., & Freeman, J.G. (2011). An analysis of the relationship between information and communication technology (ICT) and scientific literacy in Canada and Australia. Computers& Education, 56(4), 1072-1082.
  28. McCrory, R.S. (2006). Technology and science teaching: A new kind of knowledge. In E.A. Ashburn & R.E. Floden (Eds.), Meaningful learning using technology: What educators need to know and do. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  29. Miller, B.T., Krockover, G.H., & Doughty, T. (2013). Using iPads to teach inquiry science to students with a moderate to severe intellectual disability: A pilot study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 887-911. Doi: 10.1002/tea.21091
  30. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  31. Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with
  32. Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z.C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students' conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21-47. Doi: 10.1002/sce.20463
  33. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Paris, FR: OECD Publishing.
  34. Quellmalz, E.S., Timms, M.J., Silberglitt, M.D., & Buckley, B.C. (2012). Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 363-393.
  35. Sadler, T.D., Romine, W.L., Stuart, P.E., & Merle-Johnson, D. (2013). Game-based curricula in biology classes: Differential effects among varying academic levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 479-499. Doi: 10.1002/tea.21085
  36. Schnittka, C., & Bell, R. (2009). Preservice biology teachers’ use of interactive display systems to support reforms-based science instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 131-159.
  37. Srisawasdi, N. (2012). The role of TPACK in physics classroom: Case studies of preservice physics teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46 (0), 3235-3243.
  38. Stylianidou, F., Boohan, R., & Ogborn, J. (2005). Science teachers' transformations of the use of computer modeling in the classroom: Using research to inform training. Science Education, 89(1), 56-70. Doi: 10.1002/sce.20043
  39. Thompson, A.D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Editors' remarks: Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38-64.
  40. Tournaki, N., & Lyublinskaya, I. (2014). Preparing special education teachers for teaching mathematics and science with technology by integrating TPACK framework into the curriculum: A study of teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(2), 243-259. Retrieved from EdITLib database. (43833)
  41. Towndrow, P.A., & Wan, F. (2012). Professional learning during a one-to-one laptop innovation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(3), 331-355. Retrieved from EdITLib database. (37132)
  42. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from
  43. Universities Admissions Centre. (2009). Apply for participating Australia. Retrieved from
  44. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & Van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge– A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109-121. Doi:10.1111/J.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
  45. Walker Beeson, M., Journell, W., & Ayers, C.A. (2014). When using technology isn?t enough: A comparison of high school civics teachers? TPCK in one-to-one laptop environments. The Journal of Social Studies Research (0). Doi:
  46. Weston, M.E., & Bain, A. (2014). Bridging the research-to-practice gap in education: A software-mediated approach for improving classroom instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology.
  47. Wieman, C.E., Adams, W.K., & Perkins, K.K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322(5902), 682-683.
  48. Wilson, R., Goodman, J., Bradbury, L., & Gross, L. (2013). Exploring the use of iPads to investigate forces and motion in an elementary science methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 105-126. Retrieved from
  49. Wu, H.-K., & Huang, Y.-L. (2007). Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student-centered technology-enhanced learning environments. Science Education, 91(5), 727-749. Doi: 10.1002/sce.20216
  50. Yerrick, R., & Johnson, J. (2009). Meeting the needs of middle grade science learners through pedagogical and technological intervention. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 280-315. Retrieved from Iss3/science/article1.cfm
  51. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Hwang, J.K., & Collins, P. (2014). Laptop use, interactive science software, and science learning among at-risk students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(4), 591-603. Doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9489-5
  52. Zucker, A.A., & Hug, S.T. (2007). A study of the 1:1 laptop program at the Denver School of Science& Technology. Denver, CO: Denver School of Science& Technology. Retrived from ERIC database. (ED500425)
  53. Zucker, A.A., & Hug, S.T. (2008). Teaching and learning physics in a 1:1 laptop school. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 586-594. Notes

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