You are here:

Lessons Learned from Creation of an exemplary STEM Unit for Elementary Pre-Service Teachers: A Case Study
PROCEEDINGS

, University of Hawaii, United States ; , University of Hawaii - Manoa, United States

AACE Award

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Preparing students with 21st Century Skills through STEM related teaching is needed, especially at the elementary level. However, most teacher education preparation programs do not focus on STEM education. To provide an exemplary STEM unit, we transformed an inquiry-based unit on moon phases from a traditional science activity into a technology-rich, digital unit for pre-service teachers (PSTs). In this paper, we describe lessons learned related to the development and implementation of this STEM unit in an undergraduate elementary methods course. We explore the impact of this on PSTs’ perceptions of inquiry-based science instruction. Findings indicate that PSTs held absolutist beliefs and had a need for instruction on inquiry-based learning prior to engaging in inquiry, that explicit examples of technology use are needed, and that our design approach presented benefits and drawbacks. Implications are discussed.

Citation

Schmidt, M. & Fulton, L. (2015). Lessons Learned from Creation of an exemplary STEM Unit for Elementary Pre-Service Teachers: A Case Study. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2866-2874). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 6, 2024 from .

© 2015 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Abell, S.K., Appleton, K., & Hanuscin, D.L. (2010). Designing and teaching the elementary science methods course. Routledge.
  2. Anderson, R.D. (2010). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S.K. Abell& N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830).
  3. Appleton, K. (2007). Elementary science teaching. In S.K. Abell& N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  4. Atkinson, R.D., & Mayo, M.J. (2010). Refueling the U.S. Innovation economy: Fresh approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1722822). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
  5. Banilower, E.R., Heck, D.J., & Weiss, I.R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the national science foundation’s local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375–395.
  6. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84.
  7. Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. The Technology and Engineering Teacher, September, 30–35.
  8. Chan, K.-W. (2011). Preservice teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and conceptions about learning. Instructional Science, 39(1), 87–108.
  9. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
  10. Congressional Research Service. (2006). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education issues and legislative options (No. RL33434). Washington, D.C.
  11. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
  12. Davies, R.S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational technology integration. TechTrends, 55(5), 45–52.
  13. Davies, R.S., Dean, D.L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563–580. Doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6
  14. Davis, E.A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.
  15. Desrosier, J. (2011). Rapid Prototyping Reconsidered. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(3), 135– 145.
  16. Dove, A., & Dove, A. (2013). Students’ perceptions of learning in a flipped statistics class (Vol. 2013, pp. 393– 398). Presented at the Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference.
  17. Dugger, W.E. (2001). Standards for Technological Literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 513–17.
  18. Eisenkraft, A. (2010). Retrospective analysis of technological literacy of K-12 students in the USA. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(3), 277–303.
  19. Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends, 57(6), 14–27.
  20. Epstein, D., & Miller, R.T. (2011). Slow off the mark: Elementary school teachers and the crisis in science, technology, engineering, and math education. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(1), 4–10.
  21. Fulmer, G.W. (2014). Undergraduates’ Attitudes Toward Science and Their Epistemological Beliefs: Positive Effects of Certainty and Authority Beliefs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 198–206.
  22. Glaser, B. (2000). The future of grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 1, 1–8.
  23. Greenberg, J., McKee, A., & Walsh, K. (2013). Teacher prep review: A review of the nation’s teacher preparation programs. National Council on Teacher Quality.
  24. Hanover Research. (2011). K-12 STEM education overview. Washington, D.C.: Hanover Research.
  25. Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.
  26. Howes, E.V., Lim, M., & Campos, J. (2009). Journeys into inquiry-based elementary science: Literacy practices, questioning, and empirical study. Science Education, 93(2), 189–217.
  27. Ingerman, Å., & Collier-Reed, B. (2011). Technological literacy reconsidered: a model for enactment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 137–148.
  28. ITEA. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). International Technology Education Association.
  29. Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
  30. Jonassen, D.H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge New York. 88 8
  31. Jonassen, D.H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B.B. (1995). Constructivism and computermediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–26.
  32. Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R.M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
  33. Jones, A. (2013). The role and place of technological literacy in elementary science teacher education. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary Science Teacher Education: International Perspectives on Contemporary Issues and Practice. Routledge, NY.
  34. Jones, T.S., & Richey, R.C. (2000). Rapid prototyping methodology in action: A developmental study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 63–80. Doi:10.1007/BF02313401
  35. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46.
  36. Lelliott, A., & Rollnick, M. (2010). Big ideas: A review of astronomy education research 1974–2008. International Journal of Science Education, 32(13), 1771–1799.
  37. Mason, G.S., Shuman, T.R., & Cook, K.E. (2013). Comparing the Effectiveness of an Inverted Classroom to a Traditional Classroom in an Upper-Division Engineering Course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 430–435.
  38. Merriam, S.B. (2007). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  39. Minner, D.D., Levy, A.J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
  40. Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N., & O’Dowd, D.K. (2010). Learn before lecture: A strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 473– 481. Doi:10.1187/cbe.10-04-0063
  41. Mulholland, J., & Ginns, I. (2008). College moon project Australia: Preservice teachers learning about the moon’s phases. Reserach in Science Education, 38(3), 385–399. Doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9005-8
  42. National Research Council. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
  43. National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  44. Nielsen, J., & Loranger, H. (2006). Prioritizing web usability. Pearson Education. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books? Hl=en&lr=&id=YQsje6Ecl4UC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=jakob+nielsen&ots=nWMBCFVsJ_&sig=ShoEvu W5XKY-KGrdsAO8c9-bvmQ
  45. Pierce, R., & Fox, J. (2012). Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(10), 196.
  46. Sanders, M. (2009). Stem, stem education, stemmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
  47. Sandoval, W.A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
  48. Schraw, G. (2001). Current themes and future directions in epistemological research: A commentary. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 451–464.
  49. Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  50. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J.M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications.
  51. Szalay, A., & Gray, J. (2006). 2020 computing: Science in an exponential world. Nature, 440(7083), 413–414.
  52. Tanase, M., & Wang, J. (2010). Initial epistemological beliefs transformation in one teacher education classroom: Case study of four preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(6), 1238–1248.
  53. Tripp, S.D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.
  54. Trundle, K.C., Atwood, R.K., & Christopher, J.E. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 633–658.
  55. Wilson, B.G., Jonassen, D.H., & Cole, P. (1993). Cognitive approaches to instructional design. The ASTD Handbook of Instructional Technology, 4, 21–21.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections